RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive67

This is an archive page, last updated 18 July 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

My weapon of choice? The curry

Forgot to mention an odd case the wife had a few weeks ago. A guy went back to his flat after picking up a takeaway curry, and was followed in by a female neighbour / friend. She emerged a few minutes later with his poppadum in her hand (not a euphamism) and walked down the stairs to her front door. He then rushed out, realising his poppadum had gone and shouted "THIEF!! GIMME BACK MY CRISP", and then poured his curry over her, causing severe burns. So I got two things out of this; (1) from now on, I shall refer to poppadums as "crisps", and (2) curries are made from a secret compund which can be superheated and retains its heat long after the source of ignition has been removed. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... trying this with the offerings of my local curry house will endanger clothing - some of those dyes never wash out - but severe burns? Not unless reheated on return. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess he either lived just round the corner from the curry house or had put it in the wavymike when he got in. Mind you, I'm pretty sure he tipped it straight from the carton, which are usually metal, so he couldn't have zapped that. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The magic ingredient in curry which holds the heat is fat or ghee.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess. Also, it went down her top and I guess because of the consistency it stuck there, happily burning away. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not for nothing that those mediaeval types used boiling oil to repel invaders.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Planck Telescope

The first images of the CMB taken by the Planck Telescope. Wow. Ace^{Liquid Room} 21:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty, innit? 21:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

But of course, it is so filled with errors, assumptions and "worldviews" as to be meaningless. Ace^{Liquid Room} 21:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You're not letting him get to you. Are you? 21:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not "him" specifically. Just amazed at the anti-science. Ace^{Liquid Room} 21:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

teh picture lacks ma-cheese-mo, ole ! ;) srsly , is that a composite pic ? why the bright line of the milky way and all the cloud stuff in a microwave backround map ? Hamster (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course the Milky has to be there because the telescope isn't outside the milky way! However in saying that, it's the first pic and using different techniques they'll be able to get past the milky way. Ace^{Liquid Room} 22:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Click on the (last?) link on that page for a brief animation showing how they created the image. pt. 2, it can't see through our galaxy. ħuman 22:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I still fondly remember the first pix of ole flashy delivered by COBE twenty years ago. ħuman 22:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

And imagine what we'll see in twenty years time. Ladies and Gentlemen, to SCIENCE! ^theist 23:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I know exactly what we'll see, more "evidence" and "worldviews". Ace^{Liquid Room} 23:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You cynic! ħuman 07:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A problem sort of article I would propose we delete

Really embarrassing liberals, which I created in response to Really embarrassing conservatives, and whatever Really embarrassing moderates means. Also, look what happened to Poe's Law until we cleaned it up.

These "list" type articles are a running disaster. They started out funny, but now they (and they're not just political lists) are just invitations for people to type random shit that adds nothing to the site. If we "fact-tagged" the above "embarrassing" articles there'd be nothing left to them. Opinions? ħuman 04:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you the guy that wrote "really cool rich people"? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep Poe's Law obviously, but make additions of more stuff something voted on at the talkpage. Move the Really Embarrassing articles to funspace, maybe? AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 04:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What Goonie said. Same goes with "List of Youtubers" and any other list. Pare 'em down and hide them somewhere. P-Foster (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Goodi ideas, GP and PF. I might act... ħuman 07:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing really against them, we are not and are not trying to be an encyclopedia but a wikiblog. They are helpful in their own peculiar way, as lists of scandals that are regularly updated, and if you have ever gone "I wish I had a list of things Democrats have done so I can rub it in their face" it is a source of information. It is uncommon and uniqueish at least. - π 05:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Except the articles in question mostly suck. ħuman 07:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved all three to "fun". ħuman 07:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Clean and categorise them, like I did with the list of Poe's Law examples - that's certainly preferable to deletion or sweeping under the rug. But for "list" articles I don't think we should have much of a barrier for inclusion, kind of how TV Tropes lists examples of particular things. I don't think we do listing examples enough because, basically, we're not WP so can get away with otherwise "non-notable" examples. So long as we keep on top of article organisation for when lists get too long, it's fine. And as I said, that is infinitely better than just getting rid of it or pawning it off to the funspace. ^theist 10:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There is just too much in it, and it devolves to general criticism. See "Sarah Palin, for being completely unable to form a coherent sentence, suffering from a disability that forbade her from knowing a single newspaper she had ever read, and a lack of knowledge of what the Vice President even does.". Conservatives love her, so she doesn't belong there. I would suggest to include only people that even conservatives/liberals prefer to forget about. Which is the definition of embarrassing of course. — Pietrow ☏ 11:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget right wing bastards and left wing bastards - just lists of names with little or no explanation of what makes them bastards. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, in fairness those two can probably go in the trash. ^theist 12:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... one problem with these lists is they tend not to be footnoted at all, so fact-checking/organising/prioritizing is really hard. We drift from common knowledge items like Clinton/Kennedy sexual embarrassments to fairly obscure people. ħuman 05:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I killed a frog

I really didn't see that cute little frog until my foot crushed him. And then there he was, like a pancake. I feel like a murderer now. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh fuck you are a murderer!!! ħuman 07:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been the opposite for me. I have to keep rescuing frogs from my ragdoll cat. I didn't realise frogs can scream like that. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Snails that only come out at night are worse, you can just hear the 'crunch. ^theist 10:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

... I don't even know what to say to that. I guess I'm a very cold-blooded killer, then. I just had to salt the earth on part of the property... I know many, many animals perished when I did it. Not to mention some story about a Raccoon... Quaru (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A squirrel once scampered under the wheels of my car. I tried to avoid the poor thing, but I almost thought I was dealing with a suicidal squirrel. Even though I tried my best, I felt guilty for a couple of days. That is, at least in part, due to the fact my Dad is fascinated by squirrels, and passed that on to me. MDB (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

OMG! One time some friends were visiting, and as they'd never been to the new house, I had to meet them in tow, and they followed me back. On the way, that happened to me. I tried so hard to miss him, but flattened him right out. Then when we got to the house, my friends wife yelled at me for hitting it! I'd already felt bad. She even was bitching about it to my wife.. Luckily, my wife knew I'd have tried to miss it, and told her to shut it. Quaru (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I once tapped a raccoon on the head with a caveman-like club I happened to have lying around. It was the lightest of taps accomplished only with a flick on my wrist. The raccon, however, went down like a rock and began convulsing in spasms. Its back legs seemed to stop working. It skittered off the 2nd floor deck in the back on my house and fell to the ground below. I few minutes later it ran off seemingly completely unharmed. In my defense I had a high fever at the time and the raccoon was outside of door to my library eating the cat food we had set out for a couple of outside cats we had at the time. Also I hate raccons. Their hand-like paws skeeve me out. Not my proudest moment perhaps, but there you go. And fuck raccoons, anyway. I think killing and maiming wild life runs in the family. My sister who lives in rural texas has killed a lot of stuff with her car. She is something of a local legend in that regard. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 13:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That's now my favorite story ever. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

See my talk page. 30-06 vs Raccoons skull. I have pics, if you'd like me to post them. Quaru (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Parasitic wasp

Woah, now that's interesting. Usually parasitic wasp larvae kill the host on emerging. This one seems to mind control the caterpillar to actually guard the pupae after they emerge. Fucking creepy. Someone posted a good little poem in the comments as well:

“”The wasp she lays an egg 'Neath a caterpillar's skin It hatches and the larva grows Feasting from within It kills the host then off it goes To sting another one Seems to me there is too much misery to believe in Kingdom Come

Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Board Game -- if I made it up, you'd call me a liar

It's the board game of drilling for oil in the ocean!

With the BP brand on it!

With the possibility of having to pay to clean up an offshore spill!

Oh, and it was published in the 1970's.

MDB (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing the bigwigs never played it then. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the problem is they're playing it right now, and losing. MDB (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And I thought LARPers were stupid. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 16:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If I hadn't quit LARPing about a decade ago, I'd be insulted. (Well, almost quit. I've played one LARP since "quitting", but it was character written with me in mind.) MDB (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I used to LARP. And just found out my cousin started experimenting. I don't know how to talk her out of it. Doesn't she understand it will ruin her life? It's a one-way street that no one should go down. Quaru (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone help me with this?

I broke the TOC I was trying to scrape the DO gum off the bottom of the medical school shoe at wikipedia, because right now I'm looking at medical schools and I don't want to waste my life with osteopathy schools. I can't figure out how the wiki TOC works though and I was hoping someone else could fix it for me, I figure this crowd would be sympathetic to stripping altmed out from among the crowd. Now I'm off to study more from the MCAT that I take in two days! --Opcn (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It uses a template to override the normal TOC. So you'd basically have to edit it manually. ^theist 19:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Forum:Combative religious writer a sour looser

The below article is a worthwhile read, I keep thinking he might just send sheep (religious zealots) to the wolves (us). http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2010/07/01/an_immodest_proposal ^{— Unsigned, by: Ile / talk / contribs} (Moved from forum by 19:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC))

You do realise that guy's joking, right? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Do his readers? Does he? --Gulik (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's a joke.. I think he's just an asshole. Quaru (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Quaru is correct. I also wonder how many groups of explicit atheists there are receiving school funds at American public universities? I guess there must be some, but still... ħuman 05:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Italians too. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Overton Window

Anybody read it? I was idly flipping through it in the bookstore the other day, and it looked like absolute shit. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 20:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's Glenn Beck, you expected anything else? ISTR one of the Slacktivist regular commenters was planning to critique it the same way Slacktivist is tearing apart Left Behind, but I don't think they'd started it yet. (I haven't read it--I have better things to read in my spare time. The backs of cereal boxes, for starters.) --Gulik (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm liking the Washington Post review (from WP) "success of Glenn Beck's novel, "The Overton Window," will be measured not by its literary value (none), or its contribution to the thriller genre (small), or the money it rakes in (considerable), but rather by the rebelliousness it incites among anti-government extremists. If the book is found tucked into the ammo boxes of self-proclaimed patriots and recited at "tea party" assemblies, then Beck will have achieved his goal." ^theist 21:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The amazon reviews are also pretty helpful. They're the usual mix of "wow Glenn Beck is soooo right. liberals hate america" and "glenn back is an ASSHOLE!!2" but a few really useful ones sit around the 2-3 stars position. Basically, mediocre holiday novel with even more narm-tastic than normal prose, decent set of likable and unlikable characters as you'd expect, and so politically slanted to Beck's reality it'll have most people facepalming their way through. ^theist 21:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to the Future

In case no one has mentioned this yet but today (July 6th 2010) is the date Marty McFly went to in Back To The Future 2. You remember, we are supposed to hoverboards, flying cars and talking jackets. Ace^{Liquid Room} 21:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting co-incidence; you didn't just ask that question about flying cars on Facebook, which I replied by citing Back to the Future 2, did you? ^theist 21:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

errrrr, no. Ace^{Liquid Room} 21:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

He goes to the year 2015, not 2010. SJ ^Debaser 21:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, then very interesting co-incidence. Anyway, yes, it's 2015. All the years end in 5 so that they're an even number of years apart, 1885, 1955, 1985, 2015. Is this what prompted you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_Part_II#Future_date_hoax ^theist 21:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone emailed it to me and, like a chump, I posted it here. Ace^{Liquid Room} 21:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't feel bad - this is a wake-up call. Now that this has been brought to public attention, we've got a full five years to work on those hoverboards & flying cars & everything else in the film. If everybody pulls together on this, we might just be able to get it right. If we don't, Michael J Fox will gradually fade away & finally disappear just like his career. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am going to start wearing my pockets inside out in support. Ace^{Liquid Room} 22:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the eighties predictions about today, Prince declared the internet is dead. I can say the same about his career. BTW, everyone knows we are supposed to have biomecha and super-small cassette tape players by 2015--Thanatos (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've seen creationists argue that the craters on the moon was caused by water in Noah's flood shooting up into the sky. I've seen quack doctors say that water has a memory but only if you hit it right. I've seen a man so obsessed with making a "geometric fit" that he stoops to impossible depths to shoehorn things into his plan... but that, that was something else. ^theist 22:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll do my bit by inventing Pizza Hut micro-pizza that takes 3 seconds to hydrate to full size, and punching people that call me chicken. SJ ^Debaser 22:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am going to put fax machines in every room of the house - even the closet. Ace^{Liquid Room} 22:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Wow mom, you sure know how to hydrate a pizza". Don't forget the manure (for dumping bullies into, not for the pizza). Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

True Story: as a kid stunned by that film's depiction of hoverboards and time-travel, I declared to myself that if I ever invented a time machine, I would bring a hoverboard back to 1989 and give it to my 10-year-old self. Then I wrote down this thought on a sheet of paper, closed my eyes real hard, and...nothing happened. Junggai (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That's because you haven't invented the time machine yet. But you can still invent a time machine now (& the hoverboard of course), travel back & give the 'board to your 10-year-old self. This will simply cause the past in which you did not have a hoverboard to diverge from the new version of your past in which you did. Of course this might mean that the new past you spends too much time playing on the hoverboard, doesn't discover RationalWiki, never reads this thread & doesn't remember to invent the time machine & so can't travel back to give yourself the hoverboard. There is a serious risk that you might end up not existing. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Curses. That would also mean that I would have been so cool at 10 years old that I wouldn't have gotten picked on in junior high, had better luck with the ladies in high school, and actually gone to the senior prom, on the way to which I for sure would have been involved in that evening's notorious car accident. Weaseloid, my god, you just might have a point! In that case, it's better to forget the whole idea. *pours another glass of whiskey* Junggai (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Much like praying then eh? Ace^{Liquid Room} 22:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that. My 10th birthday was also when I started cussing and stopped believing in Jesus. It seems Back to the Future II caused my atheism! Junggai (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a clog post on that topic somewhere... ^theist 00:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Food woo gone bad...

Many US Americans believe that organic food contains fewer calories than comparable non-organic foods. Our work here is not done. P-Foster (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it's not only Americans, sadly. I've heard comments along those lines in the UK 19:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That's something that I didn't even think was part of the argument with organic food... ^theist 19:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I heard something a good while ago (six/seven years) in a Sainsbury's organic food aisle. Can't remember the exact words but the implication was that organic =/= fattening. I OMG'd at the time but thought no more about it thinking it was just a really stupid one off. 19:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends I suppose. A lot of cheapo chickens will have a higher fat content than an organically reared free range chicken, but I guess that's more the "free range" part than the organic part. In theory it could be the opposite, say if the organically grown produce was better nourished then it would have more carbs, in theory. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there's some cash to be made in "organic lard" in that case. ^theist 09:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha! It's interesting if the people of the subject would consider organic sunflower oil to be lower calorie than non-organic sunflower oil. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Organic oil, as opposed to inorganic oil? ^theist 10:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've had this conversation a number of times under different guises. For example "Apples insert your favourite fruit here can't be fattening - they're healthy/natural"; "You can use as much extra virgin olive oil as you like because it's healthy/natural"; "I only drink red wine because it's got that healthy/natural anti-cancer agent. It shouldn't really be regarded in the same light as other alcoholic drinks for that reason".

The idea seems to be that if something has any positive healthy property then it can't possibly have any negative property even if consumed to excess. Then if you add the words "natural" and "organic" and you're free to knock it back to your heart's content. (Incidentally, are there many examples of inorganic food?)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Organic chocolate is the ultimate health food.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"...many examples of inorganic food?" —Bob M No. I have yet to find any non-carbon-based food : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Salt is inorganic. ħuman 03:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Salt is a preservative, not a food. By itself it's "edible" to the same degree that dirt is. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Organic food" means free of artificial pesticides, fertilizers, antibiotics, and food additives. It is a term regulated by most Western countries[1]. It is not the other definitions. ~ Lumenos 05:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about pigs but grass-fed beef tallow has a much healthier balance of omega-3 to omega-6, than cows "force fed" "corn" (byproducts) in feedlot. (This "corn" diet would kill the cow soon after they would be slaughtered.) The grass-fed meat is far leaner as well. Too many people buy by the pound. If health agencies could calculate the "total cost of eating this product" (with medical expenses), this may be much different than the price per pound. When you have 2 out of 3 people dying of heart disease or stroke (atherosclerosis being a major cause of each), for this not to be regarded as a priority epidemic, is an incredible feat of propaganda and censorship. ~ Lumenos 01:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I just want to say that dying of heart attack or stroke is called "old age". What would you prefer to die from? ħuman 03:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not in your fifties though. The US does need to cut back on the corn though, it is used to fees animals, it is turned into high fructose corn-syrup and added to everything. You guys do stuff to your food that would be illegal else where. - π 03:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This "inedible corn" is the cheapest way to make carbs. (They add chemicals and process, to turn the starch into sugar to make the corn syrup.) A significant amount goes into foods as corn starch. Besides it loading cows with fat, it is the most imbalanced oil, having way too much omega-6, which competes with omega-3. "Some medical research suggests that excessive levels of omega-6 fatty acids, relative to omega-3 fatty acids, may increase the probability of a number of diseases and depression. Modern Western diets typically have ratios of omega-6 to omega-3 in excess of 10 to 1, some as high as 30 to 1, partly due to corn oil which has an omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of 49:1. The optimal ratio is thought to be 4 to 1 or lower."[2] ~ Lumenos 06:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Death" is usually heart failure (some go brain dead before then) but I didn't say "heart attack", I said heart disease, see leading causes of death. The most natural death (heart failure) would probably be from infectious disease. I don't know if some cancers might have major genetic component (70% of cervical cancer is due to the STD HPV) but atherosclerosis seems to be largely diet, and lack of exercise (although genetics could be a cause of human behavior). ~ Lumenos 05:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

But... Meat = Yum. If the price of meat goes up because of the change in government subsidies (as they are far too high, resulting in an over-consumption) then we'll kick those communist bastards out of office!!! Who do they think they are, trying to make me pay more for meat? Fucking socialist pieces of shit. Quaru (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This, I believe, is largely due to being born with greasy silver spoon in one's mouth. We are not educated in how to prepare healthy food to taste good. The other thing is all the empty starch from non-whole grains. There are so many foods to choose from and so many tasty whole vegan foods. I find that meat in moderate quantities, mixed with whole grains and vegetables (usually I use a base of tomatoes or sweet potatoes (not yams)/Smart Balance; either work with squash, garlic...) ...or plump up and fill the arteries with plague. There are worse ways to die. ~ Lumenos 02:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fill the arteries with plague? Now what sort of health woo is that?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Related and timely article from cracked.com

link. - π 13:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Usually the price of nuts at Trader Joes is far less than at super-grocery store. Most of what they sell is their own brand (less middlemen). ~ Lumenos 06:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I find growing squash to have great yields, in little time. It competes well with weeds or grass. ~ Lumenos 06:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Health food claims

Already WIGO'd this, but thought I'd mention it here: EU health food claims law begins to bite

“”Health foods would be nothing without the claims they make on the packaging. But some claims might soon vanish, due to a European regulation which demands that health food companies come up with the scientific evidence to back their labelling.

Some good news. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha, they said "bite". Auntie Beeb has a sense of humour! ħuman 10:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

name that fallacy

What's the name of the "If a Republican had done this..." fallacy? I thought it was a fallacy of omniscience, but I can't find it documented anywhere. Thanks. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. Does it even count as a logical fallacy? I guess there's an argument based on an assumption there, but I don't know what it would be called (Argument from Assumption?) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? If a Republican had done this... it would have been ignored, or better, or praised instead? That would be special pleading as you're changing the rules for a Republican for the sake of them being Republican. ^theist 14:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean like on Fox News when they say "If a Democrat/Republican had done/said this, the liberal media would have ignored/focused...". I think it's a fallacy because it assumes you know what's going to happen in a theoretical situation that hasn't happened, which would imply omniscience. In my opinion, it oversteps speculation. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Found it... Argumentum Ad Speculum: "Trying to prove something in the real world by using imaginary examples alone, or asserting that, if hypothetically X had occurred, Y would have been the result." e.g. "If a liberal had said this, the media would have ignored it, therefore the media has a liberal bias." 207.67.17.45 (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a fallacy. Sometimes it might be right, sometimes wrong, but there's nothing contrary to logic. Not everything you don't agree with is a fallacy!--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a fallacy because you're using an imaginary example to "prove" something in the real world. Not everything you don't agree with is not a fallacy! 207.67.17.45 (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

BON is right. Speculation is allowed as rhetoric, or even as thought-experiment, but it can't be used as logical evidence because it's just not real. You can happily speculate a "what if" scenario, but until it actually happens you can't draw conclusions from it because you can't know that it would play out exactly as you say. ^theist 16:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Am I a bad person...

...if I get a stiffy? Yahoo answers, asking the hard questions since 2005. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I know a couple of cousins who just got married in Ireland. It wasn't completely unopposed, but it is legal in some jurisdictions. Personally I prefer more genetic mixing as inbreeding only leads to religious fundamentalism. :)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately you're a terrible person. But I am not. Send pictures. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Talk 15:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The United States has the only bans on cousin marriage in the Western world 15:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Also: Risk of babies having genetic defects 'has been overstated' 15:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realised what an incredible source of lulz Yahoo Answers Family & Relationships section is. Even with the Poe filter turned up to eleven there are some very weird people out there - and surely there must be a better forum for scared teenagers to get an answer to "am I normal?" Jack Hughes (talk)

This is still my favorite. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. "You had better come back with a damn good sandwich". --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What is up with typing in your "birthday"

I am sure we have all seen websites that give you a drop down menu which you must input your supposed birthday in order to access something. What is the friggin point when there is absolutely no follow up or requirement to actually show that you are this age? Now I am not just talking about alcohol/tobacco sites but game sites with videos and stuff. Am I wrong in that it is to weed out underage children and actually for demographic studies? It seems that the only thing being weeded out are people who can't do the simple math to figure out the year you'd need to be to be 18/21/etc. This is just one of those things that blows my mind with its stupidity.Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 21:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh... Hmm.. I have no clue where you're from.. Anyway, here in the states, there's an actual law that you're not allowed to market to anyone under 13. Also, similar laws to keep people of a certain age out of a site. So.. yeah. That is it's purpose. But I don't think anyone deludes themselves into thinking it's effective. So it's just a way to cover their asses, legally. Quaru (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. It is completely meaningless since there is no way to confirm it. Why even have it then?Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 21:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just to insulate them from prosecution etc. If the can say "well, she told us the was over 18 ..." they're off the hook (premusably) 22:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Because they're legally required to have it. It doesn't matter if it's useless. Here in the state, we like our useless, unenforceable laws. They give soccer moms and politicians a hard on. And when politicians and soccer moms have a hard on, expect something stupid to be made illegal. Quaru (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I listen to a radio station on line. To get the stream you have to enter a zip code that corresponds to their general locale. Wasn't that tough to come up with one. ħuman 23:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I killed a spider

Wow, women can be quite irrational sometimes. I'm staying round the parent's house while they're away (looking at houses as we're moving back soon, don't ask), and I rang her on the phone to say I've arrived OK. I mentioned that there was a big wolf spider on the carpet and she insisted that I kill it despite it being 200 miles away from her. She refused to continue the discussion until I squished it because she was scared. I hate killing spiders. Yes they're a bit scary, but they eat all the bad bugs in the house. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind spiders, except that they have an annoying habit of going on the ceiling and hanging right above you. Then, realising that gravity is a harsh mistress, they keep falling of the ceiling every now and then and handing right above you from varying length bits of silk. This leads to you either having to kill the damn thing or peering up in terror every 3 minutes to see if the bloody thing is there. And if it isn't... OMG. OMG. It's on me. Get it off. OMG. KILL IT WITH FIRE. It's simply best to fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My wife loses her shit over spiders. During a canoe trip she once almost tipped over our canoe three feet from a monster fucking cotton mouth that was sunning itself a branch near the river in order to avoid this itty bity spider (that I did not even see). I was so pissed at her over that and she was pissed at me. She was all like "there was a spider!" and I was all like " there was a snake!" ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 00:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

ScienceBlogs orbits the shark

See WIGO:Blogs. It strikes me that this sort of blogging could be done as part of a nonprofit. Like, ooh, I dunno, a foundation that likes rationality and science and knows something about collaborative environments. Do we have one of those in the works at all? - David Gerard (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've edited it into the SciBlogs article. PalMD was (I think) first to express disquiet. 23:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't find what you are referring to? ħuman 23:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a phenomenally dumbass move done in a remarkably stupid way. -- -PalMD ^{--Yee haw!} 23:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I found it. ħuman 23:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not at wigo:world it's at wigo blogs, by the way. ħuman 23:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've altered David's link. 23:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

fanks :-) - David Gerard (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me like a major PR cock-up. The "Editor" one David Pellegrom has been there (Pepsi) for 9 months. Will he be there for 12 months? "broad knowledge of international affairs, development, and global communications. Strong professional experience supplemented by an MBA, MA in International Affairs, and service as a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer in Ghana. Specialties: Issues Management, Corporate Social Responsibility, International Development, Communications and Media Strategies linked in. 00:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It is very clearly part of a larger PR campaign underway. It is pure, unmitigated bullshit. It's not the content or the company that I'm opposed to (although it is laughable)...it's the violation of basic journo ethics.-- -PalMD ^{--Yee haw!} 00:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I put the above in the comments: sorry, I forgotted to remove all the wiki-formattinbg. 00:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's like they think having a wall between editorial and advertising suddenly doesn't matter if it's web two point oh dude - David Gerard (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Are blogs really Web 2.0? I mean, yeah, you can comment, but is it really collaborative and interactive? (And as I said on your usertalkpage Right on, PalMD!) Šţěŗĭļė classified ad 02:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

When it's "[insert excuse here]", details hardly matter. The point is that when you tear the wall down, tear it down good and hard - David Gerard (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

PZ Myers of Pharyngula plans to announce his decision live on the Discovery Channel at 9 on Thursday night. 11:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Gone! 17:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Although having read that, I think their hearts and reasoning were in the right place. You cannot properly discuss science without also discussing industry and that perspective is sometimes what is missing from the science blogosphere. Industry is what takes scientific ideas, churns some cash out of them and then gives you more cash to get another idea. And it's not always a bad thing either as not all companies fit the stereotype of being environmentally, socially and economically bankrupt - if you think industry is unwaveringly "evil" then you must concede that it is a necessary evil. ^theist 17:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As Pal said above ("It was a phenomenally dumbass move done in a remarkably stupid way"), it wasn't just what they did but also the way they did it. There's several blogs there that would obviously find sitting in the same room as a multinational whose flagship is a substance that has no redeeming features and a whole load of bad ones intolerable. They're also purveyors of bottled water - which they get from the fucking tap! Very bad PR for Seed & Pepsi (and for SciBlogs). They could have (possibly) got a blog on there without all the aggro if they'd gone about it more diplomatically from the start. 18:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Brethren!

I have been called to found a new religion. It came to me in a dream. It's a pretty easy religion to follow, in fact it's almost exactly like atheism except that we also believe that when you die there will be an afterlife. This afterlife lasts approximately half an hour, during which time you are transported to a roughly six feet square bare white room containing a single midget in a dog costume. The midget then proceeds to mock you roundly for how ridiculous your ideas of what the afterlife would actually be like were. After 30 minutes elapse you are allowed to go away in to oblivion.

Surely you'll join me? I think we need a catchy name. And a song. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Make it a Snoopy costume, throw in a six pack of Sam's and I'm down.

And stop calling us Shirley. -.-; -Tygrehart

You had a dream involving a midget in a dog coustume? 0.o --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this out of a Dilbert comic featuring Dogbert?--Thanatos (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you meet a midget in a dream, it just better be this guy. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Eugenics Boy has found another wiki

http://libertapedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Individualist_of_the_steppe

Will he last any longer there than he did at Metapedia? ^{— Unsigned, by: 193.200.150.82 / talk / contribs}

Who is he and why should we care? Also please sign your comments. - π 05:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That ain't him. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Our friend User:Research psychologist. He signed up and immediately sanitized the Eugenics article. Anti-Moslem bias. Yes that's him. 193.200.150.125 (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Odd

My blog's been receiving a lot of visitors from http://obama-scandal-exposed.co.cc/vids, but when I click on the link, I get routed to a domain parking site. Anybody know about this so-called Obama scandal? Maybe Rob can join the dots for me. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 12:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You can keep your fucking celebs.

Paris Hilton sees "tigers and elaphants" (sic) while on safari. People this dumb shouldn't be allowed to breathe, let alone take up inches of newsprint. --PsyGremlinTal! 15:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You are an idiotist. 86.40.102.99 (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And proud of it! Actually, while I'm in rant mode, what the fuck is it with Americans (ok, and Brits) for making people famous for doing basically fuck all. We've had that Kardashian trollop and that Kimora Lee tramp parading around here like God's fucking gift to mankind - and who the fuck are they? Whoppee, so they have a reality show. That's what makes them famous. And the Brits are just as bad - jane fucking Goodie was famous for being a racist and dying of cancer. What the fuck! /rant over. --PsyGremlinTal! 15:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

'Tis the nature of slebdom. It's all tied up in aspirational advertising and in other respects escapism. While I think it's wrong to give people this much attention for doing fuck all (in fairness my opinion of Paris Hilton has been going up over the last few years, but then again it can only go up from where it was) reading about it in newsprint is no different to reading a book of fiction or going to the cinema. It's just part of the daily entertainment to distract ourselves from the fact that we're A) mortal and B) fundamentally unhappy. I know that's a bit of a cynical interpretation, but it's pretty much the long and short of it. ^theist 17:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And come to think of it, further to that point is the effect that these randomers who happen to be famous have on so-called "sophisticated" or "intelligent" people. The ones who consider themselves above reading through glossy magazines, reality television and crap like that. These celebrities - evidenced by how you're ranting about them being idiots - massage your insecurities by providing valuable reassurance of your intelligence and self-perceived moral/mental superiority (I say "perceived" purely because such a thing can only really be subjective). It's the same thing that causes "alternative" music fans to constantly go on about how "gay" Justin Bieber is and how pop music is shit. ^theist 17:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Erk. The day I need to read about <insert bimbo of choice's name here> exploits to make me feel better about myself, is the day I take a casual stroll on the railway tracks. --PsyGremlinFale! 17:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And your original post happened because? ^theist 17:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A celebrity made a spelling error which makes her too stupid to live. Meanwhile she is on safari and we're stuck behind our keyboards. I wish I was too stupid to live ^{— Unsigned, by: Sheesh! / talk / contribs} 19:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's like the lottery: "With a bit of luck that could be me." Someone else living your dreams for you type of thing. There's probably a word for it(?) 23:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Aspirational projection" or possibly something involving the word "surrogate". ^theist 23:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Today's Republicans would drive Reagan out of the party

Today's Republicans would drive Reagan out of the party.

Don't think so?

Imagine what they'd do to a candidate that openly supported amnesty for people in the country illegally. No pussy-footing around it; the hypothetical candidate actually says, "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally."

Ronald Reagan did just that. That's a direct quote from his 1984 debate with Walter Mondale. MDB (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean the Ronnie Reagan that raised taxes in CA? Jack Hughes (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Or the St Ronnie that signed a bill which led to two million abortions? Jack Hughes (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I just had a realization -- Reagan is to hard core Republicans what Jesus is to Christian fundamentalists. They worship him, but really don't follow what he had to say. MDB (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Too true. Especially easy since he's dead. Ravenhull (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

xkcd for 7 July 2010...

... is so very very true.

Seven months or so since I learned that my parents thought their monitor was the computer, and that they referred to the actual CPU box as "that thing on the floor in the there", I'm still shaking my head in disbelief.

MDB (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've always found that the name used by people for the big beige (or nowadays, probably black or silver or something) box under the desk is "hard disk". Though I've definitely come across people who thought the computer was switched on when in fact they'd only switched on the monitor. See also this one from xkcd alt (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A speedy printing shop I used to use that had Macs used to refer to the "box" as the hard drive, too. ħuman 20:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly MDB should encourage his parents to buy eMacs, so the monitor really is the computer. alt (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The flow-chart linked by Alt reminds me of my experiences with "fixing" problems with my parents' (& grandparents') video recorders - usually basic stuff like tuning in to a new channel, that you can either figure out from the menus, by trial & error, or checking the manual if it's around - but it's always me they expect to do it & are completely helpless to do it themselves. They've now supplemented their VCR (which they're still clinging on to for some reason) with a DVD recorder, & expect me to show them how to work it properly, even though I live two-hundred miles away & have never owned or used a DVD-recorder. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've heard about the monitor/computer thing several times before. I used to read this blog on Computerworld which has a litany of computer stupidities.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Har, har.

The Onion comes up with brilliant, as usual, video news report skewing Apple and Mac-lovers. It's almost as good as the Cracked one on them! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 20:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Tomahawk Ohio's in the Pacific

This article makes a big deal that China is possibly freaking out because 3 of the four modified Ohio-class subs carrying Tomahawk missiles instead of Tridents are all in easy striking distance. You know, while China is certainly watching them with some interest, I am sure that they are being 'publicly' displayed for another country in the region, one that 462 Tomahawks might just ruin it's whole week. Ravenhull (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, gotta keep those damn Soviets in line, otherwise they'll spread socialism and communism through the world and end freedom. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Kim Jong Il and the saber rattling by North Korea lately. Ravenhull (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You have to love this military dick-waving... ^theist 23:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to false-sign as nobs^{don't bother me} in order to maximize the commie-baiting. My bad. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Facebook Questions

So I'm getting addicted to this. It basically proves a lot of people are idiots with stuff like "how does facebook questions work?" and it may also show that the moderators are sensitive, as they've deleted one that was religious in nature (although I'll call Hanlon's Razor on it as it was a duplicated question). But the thing that strikes me is why do women not like my answers. Out of all of them, I've only had 5 or 6 marked down as "unhelpful" (not a bad record for the internet where everyone is a douche) but they've always been from "a woman" - never "a man" or someone who has let their name out of the bag. A pretty odd demographic response there... ^theist 20:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Women are trouble; that's my analysis. I don't know what Facebook Questions are - should I be glad? I'm sure that I have experienced women not liking my answers in other contexts. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I once told a woman she was handsome. She hit me in the face. SJ ^Debaser 22:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's ridiculously addictive once you get into it. People ask questions (not all of them totally retarded) and you answer them. It's a built in feature of the site (rather than an app) and still in beta so perhaps not everyone has it available yet - there are unanswered questions from May, while I've only seen it for the past 48 hours or so. It's certainly not open to Opera users; to my dismay they still can't figure out how to obey the number one rule of web design which is proper fucking browser compatibility. ^theist 22:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahh! There's another one! This is beyond a joke. This "a woman" character is really getting on my tits... ^theist 22:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And another two in quick succession. Is it that women are creationists? Or are they reading my comment at the bottom about "a woman" marking it down and getting in on the running joke?? ^theist 23:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this basically just FaceBook ripping off Yahoo Answers? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ostensibly yes. But they seem to have an automated system to prevent lolspeak and they target the questions by lining up question tags with you profile likes and dislikes. I think the aim is to step towards a sort of semantic web where you ask and get the answer rapidly, seeing if the combined power of Facebook's users can produce something with sense. That's the dream anyway, it's already degenerating into shite. ^theist 17:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Best of the Public all over again. Conservapedia truly is ahead of the pack, as always. DickTurpis (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else here remember The Oracle? ħuman 01:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I broke her vase. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Soccer in the US

I have to admit I'm not soccer fan, but then again, I'm not a fan of any sports, really (I can feel my machismo ranking diminishing as I type this). I occasionally watch an NFL or baseball game, but quite infrequently. I do have to wonder, though, is soccer not as popular here because the networks are actively trying to stifle it due to the difficulty of airing commercials during games? The NFL and baseball have ample time for long commercial breaks, so networks have a strong incentive to show those instead of soccer. Am I a victim of a corporate scheme? Have they gotten into my head? Personally, I agree with those who say low scores are a bit of a turn off. I think it's nice to watch a team score more than once a game (though the other end of the spectrum is just as bad, it's hard to get excited about someone scoring in basketball, when it happens about 100 times a game). But as I said, I don't really watch sports anyway. DickTurpis (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hockey also features low scoring, but of course also features intentional violence. And the only reason US football has "high scores" is "score inflation", where a TD plus kick = 7 points. Most US football games have scores in the 2 - 5 range. And, yeah, the continuous clock thing would relegate soccer to either an expensive sports channel or pay per view I'd suspect. The recent World Cup blitz on network TV here is more of a "prestige offering" I suspect. Perhaps they could figure out a way to run ad material in a chiron? ħuman 01:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm discounting score inflation in football. You're still going to typically see something in the neighborhood of 2 touchdowns and maybe 3 field goals for each team in your average game, so yeah, maybe something like 2 to 5 or 4 to 7 is a typical "score", but it's still higher than all these 0 to 1 soccer games we keep seeing. I hate hockey more than just about any other sport, but I'm not sure why. Yet even their scores are typically higher than soccer. I realize there's more to the game than the number of points scored, but I do think that is a significant part. Anyway, I'm not a sports guy, so it hardly matters to me. I just find it hilarious that all these retards, realizing that we're not so great at soccer, feel they have to discredit the game rather than admit there's something we're not #1 at. DickTurpis (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

USA NUMBER ONE USA NUMBER ONE I typed it, it must be true! ħuman 06:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget, American Hockey (The NHL) has a completely different set of rules and regulations meant to facilitate higher scores. Part of the issue is that low scoring games make it difficult to bet other than straight win/loss. In basketball and American football, you can bet the spread. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 06:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing with football is that having a strong defense usually pays off better in the long run than having a strong offensive, and unless you've got a team that's stacked with world-class players on almost all positions (like Spain or Barcelona), you can't have it both ways. Ball control and positioning are essential, and both are much harder to maintain on the offensive, while mounting fast counterattacks from a well-organized defense will result in fewer, but better chances. Teams that rely on relentless attacking are great to look at, but they rarely win competitions. When two such teams meet each other, scoring opportunities are frequent, making for a very exciting game, but most coaches will favour a more controlled or even outright defensive approach to the game, simply because this model has historically enjoyed more success. Röstigraben (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

About my original point and commercials, how do the stations that carry soccer manage to air enough commercials to make money when the play doesn't stop regularly for substantial periods? This may seem like a hopelessly naive question, but I've never really watched a game for more than a few minutes. DickTurpis (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Lots of pregame, halftime, and postgame commentary/highlights stuffed with ads? Socialized television? I dunno. ħuman 20:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Half-time is mostly ad break and then, as Human says, there's lots of pre-match build-up and post-match analysis. If it's on the BBC though, the question's moot. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dunno anything about it but didn't Sky go to an ad break when someone scored a goal or something to general approbation? 23:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Sky cut into the play for ad breaks.

The worst I've come across is French TV for the Grand Prix. F1 is boring enough without TF1 always managing to cut to ads just as there's an overtake, a crash, a cartwheeling fireball of death, what have you. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The ads'd be a welcome break in F1. How anyone can watch that absolutely defeats me. I was once (1960s) taken to a motor race of some kind at Silverstone^(?): possibly the most expensive boredom I've ever endured. 23:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

F1 is too processional. But for petrol heads and techno junkies, it is the ultimate in motorsport and therefore appealing. Each to his own. Ajkgordon (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Complete Awesome

Big bang to man in 10 minutes. So much awesome. Most awesome I have seen this year even. Ace^{Liquid Room} 22:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Big bang to man in 10 minutes. Ad-hoc.

So much awesome. Non-sequitur.

Most awesome I have seen this year even. Why do evolutionist insist on saying these things without evidence? [link to Creation Ministries International]. - π 22:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Pi has the PjR virus again. Can someone reboot him please? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Pi has the PjR virus again. An evolutionist resorting to a personal attack, what a surprise. To show you how fair and honest I am, I will not do anything, I will wait for an umpire to block you for me. - π 22:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Fucks sake. I thought we had proper anticreationist software installed on all our members? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You only make these personal attacks because you have no positive case for macroevolution. - π 23:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Did I tell you about the time the Jehova's Witnesses missionaries came to my house PjR? They were so polite and nice, unlike you FUCKING DOUCHEBAGS RUNING MAH SITE. Luckily, they were also unarmed, and due to the power of the Second Amendment, I was able to defend myself against dangerous psuedochristians. My wife buried the bodies is the backyard, so it's totally cool, too! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I was bored after two minutes, was there something interesting I missed? ħuman 06:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently him and some quazichristians had a disagreement about their beliefs, but both he and the JWs were very polite about it. Whereas atheists on his blog do nothing but threaten to kill him and bugger his pets and burn his house down. That was the jist of it. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's all over for Germany in the World Cup

The Octopus has spoken. And I'm proud to tell that the octopus is British. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we get to eat the octopus if it's wrong? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

At the age of five or so in the spring of 1976 my sister picked Jimmy Carter out of a list of a dozen or so primary candidates. ħuman 05:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Octopus was right. --Swedmann (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Fucking scary. Article? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

He's now called the final for Spain and the 3rd place match for Germany. Röstigraben (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have an English friend of German heritage who was supporting Germany in the World Cup. I saw him yesterday for the first time since he they got knocked out and I asked him if he was upset over it, to which he replied, "I don't know what you're talking about." SJ ^Debaser 11:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Effin' NASA

Producing a game for Windoze XP 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats just the minimum requirements. It works in the other versions as well. I just succeeded in failing a mission on 7. Sen (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

While we all know that Linux > Windows XP (and Susan is, I believe an Ubuntu user), it normally means that Windows stuff just won't work. That said, Moonbase Alpha installs via Steam and uses the Unreal Engine, which is Linux-friendly, so it might work under Wine. I'll give it a shot when I get home later. Bondurant (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Dual-booting would be a better idea than using Wine. Wine has enough problems running regular software, so I'd imagine games would be worse (haven't actually tested that since I play games on consoles, but I have run into problems with other things). --GastonRabbit (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Wine seems to be this really good idea, everyone always says that they will test something to see if it works on it and yet never does. :p Sen (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Rule of thumb: compatibility layers are never 100% compatible with the platform they provide compatibility for. --GastonRabbit (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Godblock.com

There's a website that's offering a filter that blocks all religious content so that the children of the world are protected from the insanity that is (fundamentalist) religion. In a fun twist, won't RationalWiki be blocked by this filter as well for discussing such and attempting to refute it? I don't know if RatWiki is blocked by the filter, and I would install it and see, but I'm lazy and don't have children to protect anyways (I'm a socially responsible alcoholic). Smapdey (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You are evil. People can free themselves from religion, but then they aren't really free. Atheistic pigs. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone ought to tell them that sunlight is the best disinfectant. The best way to introduce someone to a religion is to show them the deep end... then they won't be tempted to even try the shallow end. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not reading religious BS because of a block is like not killing people because its a sin. Correct result, wrong methodology which bypasses human intelligence and proper understanding. Sen (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just a parody of software used to block kids from accessing pornographic/Satanic/etc. content. Tisane (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least they wouldn't have to put up with Conservapedia. --GastonRabbit (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

How to kill a political party

Replace your (loony) ethnic leader with PALIN! (I put it on WIGOworld as well 'cause I never know where things like this should go) 17:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

RIP the Rape-ublicans. It was funny while they lasted. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 05:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Jon Stewart last night

I notice that PZ Myers had a go at him about this. After he said "The more you delve into science, the more it relies on faith." I just turned the sound off and went out of the room to do other things until the moment of zen. It had to be the dumbest thing I have heard on that show. - π 01:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This would have been a repeat of last week, I assume. Normally I would defend JS. And PZM. If they argue, I'd want clear versions of what they said... PS, JS is funny, PZM isn't, really. ħuman 03:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see this Daily Show, but for argument's sake I'll bite. Stewart is right in a different sense than the faith we're accustomed to. It's more trust than faith, and by that I mean trust that the entire world is not a conspiracy against you. Let's face it, none of us are probably ever going to independently confirm any aspect of the periodic table, but we assume it is accurate based on the studies of countless others which we will never examine ourselves. So yes, we have to accept certain things we cannot verify ourselves. But this is a far different sort of faith than the religious "it's written so I believe" faith. Occam's razor is on our side here; either the periodic table is correct or everyone is in confederacy against us. Nothing like Noah's flood. DickTurpis (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

^^^ yeah, what he said, that's what I meant. ħuman 05:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The trust is also well established because there is nothing to be gained in lying and making stuff up, but there is everything to be gained by proving someone wrong. If you could outright replace special relativity or devise an experiment showing the speed of light changes you'd be famous and probably very rich. So it's well established trust. Faith, by comparison is slightly different in that you don't really gain anything from challenging an accepted position so you take what is said on trust, but don't have any reason to think that the trust is on firm ground. ^theist 16:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Armondikov" (if that is your real name) you're not fooling anyone here. We all know how scientific universities and institutions are controlled by liberals, and liberals love deceit and censorship of the Bible and opposing ideas. To take anything they say at face value is beyond naive. If anyone were to prove the speed of light is variable (something that would be quite easy to do, if it were ever allowed), their findings would immediately be censored, and the scientist who made them dismissed from academia. Liberals never cease to try to turn people away from the Bible, and most scientific institutions are founded on this very principle. Deny this an lose all credibility. Andy Schlafly (Talk) 17:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy 85th birthday

The Scopes monkey trial. Should surely be marked. 12:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Say NO to bottled water

A potential use for discarded water bottles?

A pet peeve of mine: Story of bottled water _{(and it's subtitled YEAH!!!)}.^{(Hat tip:SciBlogs)} 14:50, 7 July 2010 ^{(Fergot ter sine)}

Shipping bottled water round the world has to be one of the least green things that one can do.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Must…fight…pedantry…gene…Must…not…give…in…to…pedanticism…and…say…"except…in…drought…ridden…areas." Damn, sorry, guess I got beaten by my genes again.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have quite a good use for the 1 gal water bottles... Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me}

Our neighbour uses his 4 litre milk containers for that. 15:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I also get bottled water quite frequently, but I just buy the cheapest stuff that doesn't even hide the fact that it's actually tap water and as far as I'm concerned, I'm paying for the convenience of the bottle and not the content. ^theist 15:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

@SD, even in drought ridden areas there are better ways than to use bottles, tankers, for example. @Armandikov - why don't you refill the bottles from the kitchen tap - that's what I do. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I do. But often I'm not lagging around the big 5 litre ones with me all the time. It's mostly when I'm doing set building work, it's easier to grab a 5 litre bottle for about £2 and lug it down than it is to keep heading back to a kitchen tap and refilling small ones. As I said, it's the convenience of the bottle there and then. For everything else there's Platypus bottles. ^theist 16:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, there are some issues with bacteria building up in bottles so they need to be regularly washed with boiling water. Because of the thinner and lower density plastic, you can't effectively boil them without severely weakening or deforming the bottles. This is the main reason that milk bottles are glass; they can withstand the heat needed to sterilise them during recycling. To have the same stability in plastic they'd have to use plastic that's five times thicker at least (hence why I use Platypus ones, which are emphatically non-disposable and quite sturdy). ^theist 16:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

JH, I was talking about places like sub-sahara and sahara Africa, and disaster areas where people get completely cut off from the outside world (Chinese earthquakes, etc). Getting water tankers in and out of places simply isn't possible, but air-dropping in crates of bottled water is.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Googling around found this High initial cost ($99 each) but long life (between 4,000 and 6,000 liters), interesting. 16:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that just basically an anti-bacterial cafetiere? ^theist 17:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look into it it removes bacteria & viruses & a whole lot of other shit^{(pun intended)}. 17:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Does reusing a water bottle actually create pathogenic levels of bacteria? What are they feeding on? It's not like you're reusing a milk bottle or a rice bowl. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds far-fetched to me. I "re-use" glasses all the time, and the one I drink water and sometimes milk from just sits on the kitchen counter between uses (triple rinse after milk with plain cold tap water...). The whole bottled water thing is one of the hugest scams I've ever seen, except perhaps cable TV. ħuman 01:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, there is a local battle going on here (for years now) with a company that wants to pump a few hundred thousands gallons a day [3] to ship to Europe and sell as bottled water. Around here, we all have private wells, and the big fear is that they'll pump the aquifer down, causing many wells to fail, forcing the homeowner to have a new, deeper well drilled. There may also be concerns for the effect of the quality of our water, since one reason (artesian) well water is clean and safe is it spends so long percolating through the bedrock. Last time I had my water tested, btw, its pH was 7.0 and it had no measureable hardness. Not much flavor, but quite refreshing. ħuman 01:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

@Vertically challenged editor: Just because bottle water may be used in emergencies does not make the general principle more environmentally friendly.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I reuse my water bottle without washing it. I like to live dangerously. Sen (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already been drinking tap water. --GastonRabbit (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I sterilize my tap water with Scotch whisky. But you all already knew that. ħuman 03:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Machismo!

At least someone is taking Ken's ideas to heart. DickTurpis (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how big his dick might be. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen "Christian spanking blogs"? I'm afraid to quote any of the more bizarre cruelties. They're all jaw droppers but maybe search for "credit-check". Oh man, it looks like the Fatherly Forum has got trlols. It so wong. ~ Lumenaid - (Wong's chattery) 09:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Evil jokes

Like, there was a guy, he was mentally ill or something - very stupid and didn't understand everything etc. Otherwise he was very friendly and good-hearted. He worked in some kind of warehouse. On the first floor of that warehouse there was an office of some kind, only women worked in that office.

So, his coworkers wanted to have little fun and told this guy: "Hey, go upstairs and ask some menstruation liquid from women" (Is there a specific word for that liquid? Like, I hope you understand what I mean)

So he took two buckets and went upstairs and asked for it. The buckets flew downstairs before him.

Have you ever done such evil jokes and what do you think about them? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I used to play fetch with my dog, and sometimes I'd get the ball, and - here's the thing - only pretend to throw it. Who'd have thought it, eh? The little fella would go running off, looking for a ball that wasn't there. Then he'd twig and come back to me. Then, I'd do it again! Such a laugh.

He's dead now, though, but hey. Bondurant (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In UK factories they used to play a trick on the young new hires by sending them down to the stores for a "long weight". Traditionally the storeman would say "stay there and I'll have a look" and disappear round the back. About half an hour later he'd reappear and say that hadn't got any.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

When I worked at a restaurant, they told me "Hey, I need to use some elbow grease to clean out this microwave, can you go grab some from over there?" Tisane (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

At my first job as a dishwasher, the kitchen guys sent me to the restaurant next door to borrow some "med well glaze." Then that place said they were out and sent me to another restaurant. I ended up going to three different places before somebody told me I was being messed with. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 23:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

On a ship I worked on it was sometimes customary to send a noob to the bosun or mate in search of prop wash. But that was innocent stuff that wasn't going to get some poor sod kicked in the junk. DickTurpis (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I used to laugh and call my cousin a retard. Funny thing, he is actually retarded, Ace^{Liquid Room} 00:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Would that be left or right handed elbow grease and do you have a wire-mesh oil can to carry it in? And another one from camping was to get some rubber tubing that's used to connect gas cylinders to cookers and examine it saying "damn, this is broken... hey you, do you mind going over to the other group and asking for a fallopian tube?" ^theist 00:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

When I was a wee nipper, me and my friend went to a local park the day after Guy Fawkes Day and poked around in the ashes of the bonfire that'd been there the previous night. Some stray gunpowder had found it's way into the ashes unknown to us, and a couple of fireworks shot across the park, nearly killing some younger children. We ran away pretty quickly. SJ ^Debaser 11:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation: Me and some friends were fucking around with fireworks, and my mate pointed one at some kids. We legged it and this is my alabi which I'm sticking to. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's spreading

Germany is fighting the good fight: (against homeopathy, that is) 17:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

About time too, since it was a German (Samuel Hahnemann) who originally foisted that woo onto the terminally gullible.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And now XKCD. Sen (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

An analysis of logical fallacy and other types of special bullshit

The problem I have with deontological libertarianism derived from a non-aggression principle is that it takes a very narrow view of human history. It uses the evils of coercion in order to justify allowing extreme disparities in wealth, but it neglects to mention that all land ownership, and thereby the means of production, and thereby the goods produced, is coercive; the only way for one to make a claim to ownership of land is by the use or threat of use of force, and even when bought from the government -- this is still true. Regardless of rhetoric about the free market, all market activity is based on some level on coercion, meaning that the question is no longer whether or not coercion is justified, but who it should benefit -- those with money; those who manipulate the coercion to their own benefit, or the whole of society that contributes the most utility towards the good of all. [4] Aubrey Drake Graham (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Mee too. C®ackeЯ

Where do we get ownership of natural resources, from non-coercion? ...unless maybe everyone were to agree to it, which they don't. We might justify ownership of the fruit of one's labor. How much of wealth depends on natural resource and how much is due to human willingness? How many completely "natural" resources are there nowaydays? Many resources may have been depleted to extinction were it not for laws or "owners" protecting them. States are owed something also. ~ Lumenaid - user talk:lumenos 09:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but is this a disagreement with Lily or just some weird unsigned freak? ħuman 09:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

<ramble mode ON>

Elsewhere there's been discussion of Edison. Now it's agreed he didn't actually invent all those things, but he was the one who made them viable.

Same with natural resources: it's all very well owning, say, a hill made of copper, but if you ain't got the ability and will to extract it, it might as well not be there. that's what these big corporations are for. True "the State" could do it on behalf of its members but you'd never get consensus^[sp?] so there you are: back at coercion - by the state (USSR!). The way it's done now is that individuals (corporations) do it and the state keeps a watch over them. True, corporate coercion (selfishness) can be nasty but it's the best we've got with the checks & balances provided by the state. It's called pragmatism.

<ramble mode OFF> 15:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, but that doesn't make coercion not coercion, nor all coercion except the ones that are favourable to me intrinsically evil - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What? How did I get dragged into this?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I wondered that myself. 16:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The Huwman is great Cabal insider. Could know anything. I have no idea. Maybe he will weave a supplementary hint riddle. ~ Lumenaid - (Wong's chattery) 00:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I nominate the above to be the Lumenated One's best comment ever!!! I lolled, at least. ħuman 03:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

<deRambo mode on> Demonstrating that "corporate coercion (selfishness) can be nasty but it's the best we've got with the checks & balances provided by the state" and that "it's called pragmatism", would be quite difficult. I say we stick to what we know with greater certainty. ~ Lumenaid - (Wong's chattery) 00:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Look at my baby!

Baby pics! From when we held him last night. I also posted to my talk page. Wee, I'm so excited!! It sounds like they're going to release the Mrs. But baby looks like he has a few days. Quaru (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulation! We don't seem to have a smiley smoking a cigar, so you will have to wait until I get one. - π 13:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the best I could find: . - π 13:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You haf funny blog. I'm at friend's house playing with animals. Okay, thanks for update. Bears are scary. I have chickens; you have picture of some but we know no more. Wow baby. That is pretty big deal. Is this your first time to be a father? ~ Lumenaid - (Wong's chattery) 08:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC) It says you are first time Dad, on your userpage. Congratulations and good luck! ~ Lumenaid - (Wong's chattery) 08:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah.. I don't use my blog. The best use for it so far is that I can dump photos from my phone on it. I can take a pic, and tell it "post to wordpress" and off it goes. Hence pics with no explanation. And that bear post is 4 years old. I really, really don't use the blog. But it's an easy way to link to pics of the baby, yeah? And thanks for the congrats? Quaru (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That baby is tiny. You need to feed it up a bit. When I see newborns in drama shows on TV they're always twice as big as that _{Joking, no poe detector required} Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. And he's the largest baby in ICU by quite a bit. almost double the size of the next competitor.. I've mentioned before than I'm 6'5", and around 300lbs. I make big babies! :) Quaru (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you put question marks, I am sincere. You use blog good way. I was just curios if you have chickens too. It is interesting to see an apparently real life, behind a text entity. We know someone is there but when we see one it is umm... something I don't think you would fake, for one. ~ Lumenaid - (Wong's chattery) 23:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright.. Sometimes you just come off a bit hard to read, I guess. I do have some chickens, but it's a new thing. That pic is of our first batch of chicks. They're getting really big, and we hope they'll start laying eggs within the next month. And, for whatever it's worth, I always present myself fairly honestly. And for an update on baby, we spent really late into the night trying to get the place finished cleaning. The nurse told us yesterday that she expects the doctor to discharge him today. So unless something comes up, he should be home tonight!! More baby pics. Including a smiling 4 day old! Crazy! And a pic of Mrs. Q holding the little one. Enjoy! And.. wish us luck. Quaru (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Coincidence?

I just noticed something about Chicago. Bears, Bulls and Blackhawks. Anyone else notice this? (am I really that dense?)--Thanatos (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's intentional. Similarly, the NY Jets, Mets, Nets, Sets... ħuman 00:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a legacy of the Illuminati. They leave their esoteric symbols everywhere in full public view, if only you open your eyes.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Philadelphia Flyers, Phillies, Eagles, and Union. Seattle Seahawks and Mariners (and Thunderbirds, I suppose). Hmmm.... Šţěŗĭļė classified ad 02:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

All Blacks, Tall Blacks, All Whites, Black Sticks, Black Ferns, Black Caps ... ad nauseam. --Damo^Hi 09:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's also not a coincidence that Chicago has both theda Cubs and theda Bears. For what it's worth, I don't follow baseball, but if I did, I'd be a Cubs fan. You gotta love any team that opens the season saying "just wait'll next year!" MDB (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Party

So I threw this party for a friend last night. It was his 30th birthday and he hadn't made any plans so I said, Fuck it - party at my house. All went well but I notice that everyone else I know who throws a party always get left with a fridge full of booze in the morning but for some reason I am always left with a room full of half drunk beers and some drunk asleep on the couch. Ace^{Liquid Room} 00:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What happens if you poke said drunk? --GastonRabbit (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing, I am looking at him now and he appears to be dead. Its the birthday boy actually, going blue and stinking up the place. Ace^{Liquid Room} 00:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you should probably bury him so he doesn't come back as a zombie. --GastonRabbit (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Waste of good meat. My vote goes to barbeque pit. --Tygrehart

Marinate him while he's fresh. ħuman 03:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I recommend a vinegar-based sauce. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry 'bout all the fancy stuff - just go straight ahead and deep fry him. It'll also be the safest way, in case he decides to wake up in the middle of preparation. You'll have boiling oil to throw him in. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

With all those half empty bottles you could probably whisk up a nice beer batter.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Remember to sieve out the fag butts first. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Turns out he was a alive. Thanks for all the good suggestions though. Ace^{Liquid Room} 00:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should get rid of friends who half-drink their beers. Šţěŗĭļė classified ad 02:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am actually the worst at doing that. I'll get myself into such a state that as soon as I put my drink down I forget that I had one and I start wondering why I am not holding a drink. So I open another. Ace^{Liquid Room} 02:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You...put...a...drink...DOWN? 02:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If I need to get my cigarettes I do, yes. Ace^{Liquid Room} 02:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as long is it's only beer. Don't you dare do that with whiskey. Šţěŗĭļė classified ad 03:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hell no, I'd be scared someone would steal it. Incidentally I did drink a bottle of very fine whsiky over the weekend - can't remember what is was called now but it was very nutty and woody. Ace^{Liquid Room} 03:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that is called "male genitalia". With a smoky underbody. ħuman 05:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Nutty and woody. *Snigger* Oh, wait, was that intentional? ^theist 21:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

World Cup

Final is just starting. Who's your money on? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm breaking with the octopus and going with the Netherlands. At least that's who I would like to win; I often bet against my chosen team. The question is are there enough Christians on the team to win? DickTurpis (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it still on? 18:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I want the Netherlands to win, but the Octapus oracle has called for Spain, so Spain it shall be. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 18:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a good match so far. Spain had good start, but they lost their edge when the match turned ugly. Not sure whom I should root for in the second half...I like the Netherlands, but then, they're mostly responsible for turning this game into the mess it is now. Röstigraben (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha. Bloody Dutch. They think it's a war. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Man, that De Jung guy has Macheeesmo. He straight kicked that fool in the chest. You don't see that in American Football. SirChuckB^{Leave Death Threats Here} 19:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Should have been sent off.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh I agree completely, that should have been the end of his World Cup. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 19:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Bit dull (apart from the Dutch who seem to be on a bezerker at the moment). Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hell of a save from the Spanish keeper.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Not so much a save, more of a "lucky that ball bounced off his shoes after he dived (dove?) the wrong way" SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 19:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You're obviously not listening to commentary in Spanish.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not, and seeing as how I don't speak Spanish, it's probably a good call. SirChuckB^{Leave Death Threats Here} 20:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, Spain scored. I follow the octopus. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 20:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess the pre-cogtopus scores again. It's all for the best though. After all, if the Netherlands won, who would we say were the best team never to win the world cup then? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) A well-deserved win for Spain. Chalk one up for socialism. Röstigraben (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

ITYM Catholicism, don't you? :D Well, after the world cup ran long, the ultimate outrage of the evening. I discovered dominos no longer offer anchovies on their pizzas! It's criminal. Criminal! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a socialist sport after all. The Dutch did their best to assert free-market principles by refusing to submit to bureaucratic overregulation of the game, but in the end, the government cracked down on them and enforced its precious rules, robbing them of their chances. Röstigraben (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Just f'rintrest (of which I have none). I happened on this on Flickr. That Shakira could have me (and my other ½). Almost makes me take an interest (but not quite) 23:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

... Meh... Quaru (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thing that always amazed me about Shakira is she's so tiny! --Kels (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's her pelvis that amazes/hypnotises me. Aye - she's almost 3cm shorter than me, which does make her tiny (still a millimetre or so taller than Kylie though). 02:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I pick Germany for the World Cup (oops) and Shakira for the whirled cup. Yum. ħuman 03:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Before they won the match football was a big thing here in Spain but today it's wall to wall. The goals, the route to the cup, the fouls, the players, two hour documentaries, the return of the team, the opinions of politicians, the Man in The Street, pundits ... it's never ending. Still, all power to them, it's a great excuse to celebrate.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Good luck to them, they need something to brighten their drab, monotonous, socialist lifestyle.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact the 20% unemployment rate is the biggest downer at the moment.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Great game, great vibe, ended up with a whole bunch of drunk Spaniards. If only the ref hadn't been so shit. Actually, the refereeing in general in this tournament was pretty shocking. And that guy who tried to grab the trophy needs to be taken somewhere quiet and shot. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Do these Spanish commentators have ma-cheese-mo? PS When did Shakira get so hawt? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

PZ sayeth truly

“”Religion has at least two weaknesses. One is that it is empirically false, and all of its specific claims are either pointless and unverifiable, or have been falsified. Another, though, that we neglect at a cost of diminished effectiveness, is that it's hilarious. It's a prime target for exposure of religious folly; it's the soft, ticklish underbelly of faith and we need more people to exploit it.

—Pharyngula

19:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

“”It was amazing this mystic business. You tell them a lie, and then when you don't need it any more you tell them another lie and tell them they're progressing along the road to wisdom. Then instead of laughing they follow you even more, hoping that at the heart of all the lies they'll find the truth. And bit by bit they accept the unacceptable. Amazing.

—Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!

-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 19:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Small Gods is much better. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 20:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Now the Discworld gods I could cope with. - at least they can smite you with losing odd socks. But Yaweh? 20:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Except the Discworld gods are undeniably real, even though you don't have to believe in them. ^theist 21:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you have to believe in a god for it to be real. The more people believe in a god, the more powerful he is. Conversely, no belief, no god. That's the whole point of Small Gods. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 21:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Someone has to believe in the god for it to be real. I don't have to believe shit. Gods are assholes anyway, always smiting the unbelievers and talking to guys tripping in the desert. Threatening to turn your intestines inside out and such. On a side note, I accidentally hit a turtle while driving the other day.. Quaru (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but if I'ld done Small Gods I would have had to quote the whole book.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that the wizards know they exist, but don't believe in them. ^theist 00:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering

Now that the World Cup is over and I reflect on the whole thing, did anyone else hear the word vuvuzela for the first time a few weeks back, with absolutely no context, and, not knowing what it meant, assume it was a slang term for vagina? Feel free to say "no, it was only you." DickTurpis (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it was only you. Idiot. Ace^{Liquid Room} 03:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I suppose it was. DickTurpis (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's so obviously phallic... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 03:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

==========<) BBBBBBBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ hi there! 03:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you get your vuvzela vajazzled by mistake? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You know you want to click it. Do it! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 04:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate you so much right now. And on the subject of vuvuzelas. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 13:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The revealed truth

I have got something really interesting for you guys. Quick background, I have a good friend who just got done working in Uganda for 2 years as part of the peace corp. He is a talented artist, writer, and filmmaker, and used his skills to capture his experiences. He has a blog detailing all this and linking his videos. They are all worth checking out but he recently finished off a series that I think the RW community would find interesting.

He was contracted to film and edit a passion play performed by an evangelical group. It is an interesting look at the role of Christianity outside our usual focus in western 1st world economic countries. The film alone and the perspective it provides is worth checking out but my friend helps put all the various scenes and activities in perspective. Showing how everything from grazing animals in the back ground, to the acting style can offer hints into the daily activities of Uganda and its people, from its rural villages, to buying fruit at the market, to government and child care.

It is a 9 part post that has taken a month or so to put together, and is well worth the read and watch. Clear some time and take a look.

• Introduction
• Shepherds and Fishermen
• Cross culture shock
• Good Samaritans
• Let the little children come to me
• The last supper
• Mob justice
• The crucifixion
• The resurrection

tmtoulouse 19:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

DEWORM MY COMPUTER!

I have a worm on my computer, and I am getting sick of safe mode. What is the best way to fix this with my somewhat limited computer skills?--Thanatos (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh! 00:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

heres a place to start http://www.tech-pro.net/howto_002.html You can be much more specific if you know what worm. Pay attention to disable windows restore, thats very important for some virus, remember to create a new restore point after fixing . 67.72.98.45 (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Try deleting system 32. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ current location: near the senseless Hyundai 02:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to run Rootkit Revealer afterwards as well. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

None of that is working.--Thanatos (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

1. fill up your tub with cold water
2. boot up your machine
3. submerse your machine in the tub for 15 minutes
4. this will kill the worm

^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 01:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're looking at a complete reinstall. Get any files off you need (or buy a new hard drive) and start from scratch. Most worms these days are harder to get rid of than Marcus. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You know what's worse than finding a worm in a computer? Finding half a worm. By the way, if you replace the hard drive, destroy the old one if you don't want anyone accessing anything on it. For some reason programmers are too lazy to make formatting actually permanent. --GastonRabbit (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Or just install it as a secondary drive, get the files off you want, then use something like Eraser to securely wipe the files. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What told you, you have worm? ~ Lumenaid - (Wong's chattery) 09:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

My computer slowed down to a halt and started sending spam.

http://www.microsoft.com/security/malwareremove/default.aspx This actually works well Hamster (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

My computer slowed down to a halt and started sending spam. Also my flash player started crashing like crazy . Why can't safe mode have sound?--Thanatos (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Safe Mode loads the most basic drivers possible since it's a mode meant for maintenance (including solving hardware issues, which is the reason for this). It apparently just didn't load your sound card's driver. --GastonRabbit (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Brilliant. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 04:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Nice. Please add to article? xkcd is CC by SA so it's ok. ħuman 05:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically speaking, shouldn't a homoeopathic solution of sperm be an abortifacient? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I <3 alt-texts.. "Dear editors of Homeopathy Monthly: I have two small corrections for your July issue. One, it's spelled "echinacea", and two, homeopathic medicines are no better than placebos and your entire magazine is a sham." And I believe you're correct, and xkcd is wrong. That will cause an abortion. Someone stop them! What if she's already pregnant, and they don't know it yet!! Abortion is murder, you two!!! Quaru (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

But it would be a good cure for morning sickness and nausea. ^theist 12:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be ground up placenta? The semen doesn't cause morning sickness, the parasite inside does. Let's ask Tom Cruise, maybe he knows. Quaru (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Why, because he's a parasite inside Hollywood? MDB (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Because he's increasingly odd? ^theist 21:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Parasite inside == thetans. Scientology FTW, but not really. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. And he ate the placenta from his kid.. Or was that a myth? I thought I actually saw an interview wherein he said as much. But I do my best to avoid douches, so I dunno. Maybe he was unable to get a hangover for a month! Quaru (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Professor Values

Andy would love this guy. Via PZM.--WJThomas (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite a heavy dose of sarcasm there, although I can't really see his point. The case only upheld the right of the university to not recognise groups that discriminate based on university policy. The university can still support and fund these groups if it so wishes. This gives public universities more flexibility than they previously had, were they had to fund student groups even if the were not open to all students. - π 01:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

He's definitely being sarcastic. I call Poe (even if it is unintentional on his part). --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think he was attempting to be funny and satirical but he fell on his face. Oh well if he keeps trying he will get the hang of it one day. - π 02:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure someone finds it hilarious. Although I still maintain that the word for someone who only makes themselves laugh isn't "comedian". ^theist 02:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

But why is PZM taking it so seriously when it's so obviously a joke? Poe's Law runs deep. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What... you mean... PZM isn't perfect?--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Christian Supremacists in the US Military.

Read. Fear. P-Foster (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that ruined my morning. Thanks, great link to a very brave man. Jesus, why are the nutjobs he's fighting against in the Armed Forces?Darkmind1970 (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And I thought fundamentalist whack-jobs on one side was bad enough. I'd like to think this is sort of an over-hyped or isolated story, but it probably isn't. This is going to turn into another fucking Crusade isn't it? ^theist 09:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope Obama manages to pull some magic beans out of his backside and secures a second term, because if the rumours are true and Palin gets in in 2012 we're going to be fucked faster than you can say "totalitarian theocracy". Although that could possibly be the end of the American Empire (I'll start learning Chinese now, then) this is the first time in history that we've had a superpower that could not only spoil the game, but smash the entire board in its death-thralls. The British Empire and Roman Empire didn't have the technology to screw over the entire planet, the US does. ^theist 09:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is one argument in favour of the British military tradition of having Army chaplains. They are the established spiritual mentors and allow no nutty sects any purchase. They are recruited from several different Christian denomination (the majority being Anglicans as you'd expect) as well as from the Jewish faith. Don't think there are any Muslim chaplains yet. However they are expected to provide pastoral care to all soldiers of whatever faith or lack of faith. It seems to work well and there doesn't seem to be any accusations of proseltysing either within the Army or more damagingly to the locals in theatre. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I know it's not as bad in the UK armed forces, thank fuck for that, but there probably are US sponsored/inspired movements to change it. I recall one case of a politician saying that it was vital that soldiers are taught that there is an afterlife, ostensibly because it helps them deal with death better, but more sinisterly it's a measure of control so that they'll march forward and die happy. ^theist 10:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What, Americans trying to evangelise to British soldiers? That I'd like to see! Ajkgordon (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

@Armondikov - there's not a vast amount of difference between teaching soldiers that there's an afterlife and teaching them that this afterlife involves 72 virgins. The principle is the same. Of course the 72 virgins thing is done by Muslims so that's evil whereas if it's Christianity then... Jack Hughes (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Not really, I'm just saying that the political trends tend to move over here by osmosis with about a 5-10 year lag, e.g., the main political parties having to deal with increasingly vocal batshit fringe elements. Although UK armed forces tend to be largely indifferent (if given the opportunity, British squaddies would probably put "ale" down as their religion) fundamentalism is apparently on the rise, although not as an ingrained mainstream culture as it is in the US. ^theist 10:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

JH makes a decent enough point, indeed it's underscored in the top article when they cited the example of the army commander who said "my first duty is to God and Jesus" and asked, so what if he said "Allah and Mohammad"? Also, I'm sure it's in Jesus Camp where the camp leader gets a bit jealous about how well the Muslim world can indoctrinate their children. ^theist 10:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you already have, but just google "US Military" Religion. There's some real horror stories out there. 10:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If you join the cyber-army and die in cyber-warfare, you get 72 cuddly middle-aged Star Trek fans who still live in their parents' basement - David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

One small point -- the article says the MRFF has been nominated twice for the Nobel Peace Prize. That claim is a sore point with me, since the nomination process is very open, and does not necessarily represent the opinion of the Nobel committee. Hell, Rush Limbaugh is, technically, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, because some US Congress-critter submitted his name(members of national legislatures can submit nominations). Winning a Nobel Prize is a hell of an honor, being nominated isn't very meaningful. MDB (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Nomination for the prize is absolutely nothing special, but try telling WP POV-pushers aggrandising their heroes that - David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that both Hitler and Mussolini were nominated at one point it's pretty clear that nomination is no great thing.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed our article on the subject describes a nomination as an insult. But still, there's probably a good reason behind it in this case that we would probably agree on. ^theist 00:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There must be somewhere to use this

This pic, located here - David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

LOLastronomers

Title says it all, really. --Kels (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

*smirk* ^theist 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

RationalWiki foundation, last chance for feedback

This will be my last attempt to initiate feedback on setting up the non-profit corporation to manage the site. I will be moving ahead with this in about 2 weeks when I take a trip "home" for a few days.

The legalese is over at rationalwiki:Proposed bylaws. Short version:

• At the time of incorporation there is a 3 person board, myself and 2 appointed members. The three of us will be in charge of transitioning the site from my ownership to the ownership of the non-profit.
• The three of us will also be setting up the rules and guidelines for the election of additional board members.
• Users of the site that meet certain guidelines (such as time on site, number of edits, etc.) will then appoint and elect from members that would like to serve for a one year term on the board.
• This board is will appoint an individual (me for the foreseeable future) who will run the site.
• The "day-to-day experience" of the website and its management won't change very much, but it brings in a completely different structure to the meta-management, user responsibility, and ownership.

Items that people were discussing that didn't get resolution:

• The non-profits name currently: The RationalWiki Foundation
• The statement of purpose currently: "The mission of the RationalWiki Foundation is to promote and defend science, critical thinking and public interest dialog in a free and open forum. The Foundation seeks to develop and publicize free educational and collaborative content, create community focused software, and to connect and advance the global community of rational thinkers. "

tmtoulouse 18:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look (and am open to drafting if needed) - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not run it as a sole proprietorship? That's probably the most efficient organizational structure. Or, if you want others to invest money in it, set up a for-profit corporation and allow your stockholders to recoup their investments via site advertising. Lots of active, well-respected wikis such as Wikia and Encyclopedia Dramatica fund their sites via advertising; we may as well jump on that bandwagon. Tisane (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Been there, done that, got the T shirt, Tisane. Sorry but you're coming to this late. It's been ongoing for yonks. 21:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sole proprietorship is how it is being run now, which is what we are moving away from see here for reasons. We are not a for profit organization though. RationalWiki has never sought a path to riches. It barely stays afloat form donations from users, and I pick up whatever slack is left over. We are on the internet for a purpose, and that's what the foundation is about. tmtoulouse 21:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Trent. Crack on. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I very much like the Statement of Purpose. Ace^{Liquid Room} 22:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it sounds as though you end up being forced into incorporating due to the liabilities imposed by the legal system. But, that happens all over the wikisphere: People end up making choices that are suboptimal for the wiki because the law requires or incentivizes them to. E.g., copyrights are another great hindrance to wikis being all they could be, but wikis are required to adhere to them. Wikimedia's board doesn't seem to do much for them; if anything, they throw the money away on wasteful stuff such as developing a 3-dimensional wiki-globe and funding travel for board meetings in exotic destinations. It was for that reason that I proposed cutting basically the entire budget except for technical improvements and a skeleton crew to manage them, but that probably won't go anywhere. The problem is that the board members' interests are not necessarily aligned with the long-term interests of the project, and that can be an issue for all non-profits. Tisane (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There is more than just legal reasons, though that is part of it. The two major reasons why I am pushing in this direction is 1) to divorce the site from 100 percent reliance on me as an individual, to give it the best chance to continue to exist if I am unable to continue my support of it (whether through death, discharge or disillusionment). The second biggest issue is to fully incorporate the idea of a site owned and operated by its users.

RationalWiki is not going to be funding board member's vacation trips anytime soon. I can count on about $5 a month in consistent donations. If I specifically go out of my way and ask for money for something specific I can get about $150 every 3-6 months. With a yearly donation tab of about $500 max, I don't think we have to worry about trustee corruption. tmtoulouse 22:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Would we need a group of citizens of X to periodically submit a report to the authorities? What if the group fails to assemble? --194.197.235.240 (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we can reasonably say we're all behind this. We can't convert to a for-profit for various reasons, not least because things then become much more difficult to work with because money is officially involved. I don't want to see the site over-run by adverts to generate more profit, or the site to suddenly become answerable to investors. Also, it would violate many of the Non-Commercial clauses attached to our Creative Commons media - although RW's CC license doesn't stipulate NC. ^theist 00:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the non-profit model the best, if for no other reason than it seems to be in the spirit of this site. If that helps. ʄĹїþþїɲ^;-)

These bylaws have my seal of approval. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 00:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

ARTICLE VIII - INDEMNIFICATION Just out of curiosity, what if RW is sued for (say) libel? 1) who'd pay the costs; 2) who'd be liable if found guilty? 00:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's likely the point.. if RW is sued now, tmtoulouse will go bankrupt, if after the foundation is formed, it will go bankrupt, shielding all individuals. Quaru (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a phenomenal idea, fully support. P-Foster (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

CMI "article"

I read the daily featured article on CMI every morning looking for bullshit and, wow, today's "article" has a lot. Its about dinosaurs and dragons and here are the 2 "evolutionist" expectations of dinosaurs if evolution is true -

1. There would be fossil evidence indicating the ancestor of all the dinosaurs.
2. There would be fossil evidence of intermediate forms showing many stages in the formation of such diverse characteristics as the plates and spikes of the armoured dinosaurs (stegosaurs), the one-to-seven horns of the horned dinosaurs (ceratopian), the distinctive beaks of the duckbilled dinosaurs (hadrosaurs), the thick skulls of the boneheaded dinosaurs (pachycephalosaurs), and also the wings of the flying reptiles (pterosaurs), the distinctive features of the various marine reptiles, and so on.

So CMI concludes -
In fact, all dinosaurs appear fully formed in the fossil record, without trace of an ancestor, and there is not one single dinosaur fossil that can be called an intermediate form between any of the types known.
Considering that some early dinosaur progenitors have been found and that if the creationists had done some research they'd also know that transitions have been found but even then creationists would dishonestly claim that it wasn't and continue to repeat the "no transitional's" claim - this article is one of the worst pieces of bullshit yet. Ace^{Liquid Room} 23:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if they did appear fully formed in the fossil record, that doesn't mean that they appeared full formed while alive. Where are the tapeworm fossils? ^theist 01:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember hearing not too long ago that a bunch of young dino fossils were mistakenly classified as distinct species. ħuman 01:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It is just a fine example of creationist bullshit. All creatures appear fully formed in the fossil record because everything is already fully formed! How do you identify something that isn't fully formed? I bet a creationist couldn't tell you. Ace^{Liquid Room} 01:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's Grommit not fully formed. 01:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

^theist 01:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No transitional fossils have been found. No transitional fossils have been found. No transitional fossils have been found. Šţěŗĭļė classified ad 02:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

When I was younger, I went to a southern baptist church. In Vacation Bible School one year they used dinosaurs as the theme, using quotes from the bible that "talks about dinosaurs"!!! Look kids! dinos in the bible! Isn't the bible neat!? my time in VBS eventually devolved into singing the songs as off key and loud as I could, and they eventually didn't ask me back. Quaru (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is so utterly and transparently bullshit though, how are people fooled? They can't all be that stupid, really? Ace^{Liquid Room} 02:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a well known fact that "men of the cloth" don't lie. 02:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What you're suffering is a well documented bias of projection. You assume that not only A) people are exposed to the same evidence as you but also B) that they'll respond the same way as you if they are exposed to it. This tends to be a more prevalent failing in the liberal camp, but it pretty much explains all the incredulity people feel when confronted with people with stupid opinions. ^theist 02:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I aint no goddamn liberal. Ace^{Liquid Room} 03:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with fossils in the creation v. evolution debate is that every time an intermediate form is found it creates more gaps for the creationists to point their fingers at.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha, ha, "Redding University". Ignorant gits.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Dino stamps were released nearly 20 years ago in 1991! No wonder their thinking is so behind the times.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is an old article as none of the references are newer than about 1991 (I think I saw 1992). I notice that at one point it says that only 3 Tyrannosaurus-Rexs had been found, when as of the turn of the century six had been found. Nice to see CMI helping out the environment by recycling. - π 03:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The article you just read is free, but the staff time working on it … isn’t. Consider a small gift to keep this site going. No, no! Now eff off.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate you Ace!

I normally don't trawl these creationist webshites as it isn't good for my blood pressure so I clicked on a link to Real Science in the "Homeschool Corner" (even that title irritates the shit out of me) and find a book review of Ken Demyer/Ruy Lopez's friend Jonathan Sadfart, which starts "This is a book designed to show that all nature was created, or designed, and that evolution has no explanation for how or why things exist the way they do. This is a book of evidences for Intelligent Design, though Dr. Sarfati takes it one step closer to creationism by telling the reader who the Designer is." Riiiggghhht! ID is nothing to do with Creationism. There is also a load of E-books which seem ripe for RW side-x-side refutation.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Aaargh. I need to get out. From Lincoln vs. Darwin What's the Difference

Education

Lincoln: Primarily self (or “home”) educated

Darwin: Institutionally schooled

Views of Freedom and Equality

Lincoln: His Emancipation Proclamation endeavored to free the black man, whom Lincoln considered as being created equal with all men.

Darwin: His writings, especially The Descent of Man, promulgated the inferiority of the black man and the superiority of one race above another.

1 Creation vs. Evolution

Lincoln: Acknowledged God as Almighty Creator

Darwin: Promoted natural selection as explaining all of life without God as Creator

2 View of Life Question

Lincoln: Where are we going? (Abraham Lincoln looked forward.)

Darwin: Where did we come from? (Charles Darwin looked back.)

 Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

See! Republicans are better than Darwin! What great talking points. And on another note, that's pretty sick. And.. nonsense. People suck. I agree with the "I hate Ace" sentiment, I do my best to avoid those places. Real cess pits of human stupidity. Quaru (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, you mean Sarfati has written a book that wasn't just an "oh yes it is" "oh no it isn't" with Dawkins? ^theist 15:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, I don't know, I couldn't get past the openinng para of the review. However, more stupids: There is an interview with Dr. Emil Silvestru, a "real Ph.D. scientist", called Following Darwin? which tries's to undermine Darwin's authority because he made some mistakes in geology, the interview is by Richard Fangrad, CEO, Creation Ministries International (Canada), but when you click on the hyperlink for his name it takes you to the page you are on. I must stop reading this shit.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the "Views of Freedom and Equality" is BS. Lincoln may have been somewhat progressive for his time, but he was far from a promoter of racial equality, and his views today would paint him as an intolerable racist who would be unelectable even in the most conservative states. DickTurpis (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoa whoa, what's with all the hate? Ace^{Liquid Room} 20:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You directed people towards CMI and now they're suffering the consequences. Naturally, it's all your fault, Ace, your fault. How dare you expose these people to retarded arguments in favour of ID, how dare you! ^theist 04:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dept of Only In California

California considers dropping the state rock over health issues. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Official state "things" can always lead to fun debates. Virginia currently has no state song, because the previous one was about a slave wanting to go back to the plantation in Virginia. Maryland still has "Maryland My Maryland", which is about resisting the tyrant Abraham Lincoln. And Tennessee likes state songs so much, they have seven of them (not counting the official Bicentennial Rap), but there are only two anyone ever remembers, one of which is about your best friend stealing your true love, and the other of which portrays Tennesseans as a bunch of murderous, drunken hillbillies. MDB (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The Art of being a Scientist

I came across this book on Amazon and though it might be of general interest here.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The cover looks like an underwater chess game, with sushi for the playing pieces. MDB (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hamachi to f7, checkmate! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 19:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Protest the Pope

Just keeping y'all informed: Petition & reply 14:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the petition was closed well before 6 June deadline, largely because of the General Election. I know I tried to sign it on several occasions.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Forget when I signed but I emailed to the petition place (can't find email or reply) pointing out the sillynesss of the closing date being after its visit (October?) And got a generic non-committal reply. 16:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with Ben Stein??!??

Was just watching CNN and they were talking about the economy, and one of the people they were talking to was Stein. He was just about matching the White House talking points. Scary. Of course, could be Stopped Clock Syndrome. - Ravenhull (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have heard Ben Stein a few times on economic matters and agree with much of what he has to say. There is a classic clip on youtube of he and Neil Cavuto arguing over the stimulus package - it gets quite heated at times. Its just on creationism he is (or very possibly plays the role of being) batshit crazy. --Damo^Hi 06:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is he is legitimately batshit crazy about that. But he is a really, really bright guy, so assumingly there's lots to agree with him on. Just don't bring up the origin of species. Quaru (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a common problem. Neal Adams is one of my favorite comic book artists, so I just don't pay anttention to some of the bizarre conspiracy theories and pseudo-science he pushes. Admittedly, there's some difference between Adams and Stein, since Adams isn't primarily known as a political thinker. Stein's entire career has been as an "ideas man", but still, I doubt anyone could name anyone they admire who does not disagree with that person on some issues. MDB (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ben Stein is in fact a rather wealthy man, so if he talks about economics he might have a clue or two even if he's wrong. Creationism, of course, is another matter ... - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering writing a column for the Sunday Business section of the NYT was one of his more recent day gigs (til he got fired for being a spokemodel for freescore.com), I'd expect him to be fairly knowledgeable on the topic. ħuman 23:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's just a classic example of using your (Stein's) intelligence to defend what you already believe rather than applying it fairly to both sides of the argument. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

French condom ad

http://bigpicture.posterous.com/incredible-animated-french-condom-ad I'm not sure whether this is awesome or scary. ^theist 00:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll never have sex in a public bathroom again. Thanks a lot. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 00:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Awesome.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hah! I saw that a few months ago, it's awesome. I take it you've seen this classic as well (there's a straight version too, but it's not as hilarious). --Kels (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My computer seems to be trying to protect me from you bastids - none of those videos will load. Neither will the copy of the condom ad at Slate... ħuman 01:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, fixed it, apparently the new FF has a thing that kills Flash things that can be activated by overclogging. Those animations are demented. ħuman 02:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

To me the animations don't seem very French, the scenery looks more Américain (the cars even have US style number plates, rather than French).  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware that the video is, as they, NSFW. MDB (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I was aware of that when I read the words French condom ad. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how a cartoon willy can be NSFW, especially given the context of the serious message behind it (well, okay, the end is a bit... erm, yeah.) but you'd have to be dealing with a right bunch of humourless bastards, or staunch catholics, to get hauled for watching it. ^theist 15:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The French also came up with this and this. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the best thing ever to emanate from France. Bonjourno! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting new job

I am always on the look out to make a quick buck, particularly in light of my upcoming wedding + honeymoon, so I have picked up an interesting new freelance contract. I'll be covering mixed martial arts and Muay Thai kickboxing cage fights. I am really tickled by this...sounds like great fun. Ace^{Liquid Room} 05:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You are going to save it for the wedding, right, rather than blow it on alco-ma-hol based experiments, right? ^theist 06:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You've got a job as a marquee? 07:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I loved my fight club channel, which for some stupid reason went away when comcast charged me more money. ħuman 07:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am looking forward to blood stained canvas. Ace^X-102 10:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

British teeth

I'm not an avid TV watcher so have only slowly become aware that the Septics have a low opinion of our nation's teeth. In fact, I've become aware that it seems to be a bit of an obsession.

But why? According to this (rather flawed) report, the UK has the healthiest teeth.

Is it merely because Brits are less concerned with cosmetic beauty? Or is there an historical thing behind this - like US soldiers getting the impression that the French were unwashed as they drove through decimated towns and villages in Normandy?

I only ask because I wish to know. Ajkgordon (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that the British teeth thing is similar to Australia. Because we have basic, government-funded care for everyone under the age of 18, very few people need major dental work when they reach majority. As they are not getting major work, they don't get that "nice" white, straightened, capped-tooth appearance, (on a side not why do all beauty pageant contests in the US have teeth the size of horses?) - just healthy, yellowish, slightly crooked teeth with no major dental problems. - π 09:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very few of us have perfectly straight teeth, and even fewer have whitened teeth. I think we do the minimum work for health purposes and leave out the cosmetic stuff, i.e. the stuff that is covered by the NHS for the poor, and minimal dental plans for the rest of us. I imagine our average standard of dental health is not too bad, though. At least, I've never known anyone to have to resort to using a big rock to extract teeth. Bondurant (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As an Australian living in London, I can say that your teeth look worse than Australian ones. This is of course cosmetics, not health. (I also had my front teeth re-capped after 26 years; the dentists offered me NHS work cheap, or nicer-looking work expensive. I went for the expensive.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Narcissist! Ajkgordon (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We Brits tend to make fun of people like Simon Cowell when they go to America and get their teeth whitened. It does look kind of freaky - that bright white just isn't what actual human teeth look like.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the standards of British teeth are improving. However, as youngsters we get most of our dental work on the NHS who are more concerned with health aspects rather than cosmetic appearance. Of course we tend to think that all Americans have brilliantly white straight teeth when it is only those who can afford it. The middle class in the US have more disposable income than the UK but I have seen some quite awful teeth in some parts of the USA. It is also a generational thing, young people are more affected by Hollywood values. When I went to Australia, the young's teeth were gleaming but the older generation were no better than the UK. Also in Manchester Airport when I left there was a teeth-whitening salon in the departures lounge.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My teeth were of the less-than-dazzling variety before, so I was quite happy to pay for improvement in the process of a necessary repair, given I had the cash ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

TV Tropes on this phenomenon. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)