RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive71

This is an archive page, last updated 18 August 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>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <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)

Brian Blessed sat nav

Yes, BB fans, Brian Blessed is coming to Tom Tom Check out the prototype video. Bondurant (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That's so awesome, I almost wet myself. Stephen Fry too, please. They really just ought let people make sound themes for all their products, and let celebs sell voice packs. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposition Hate overturned

moved to here post-barchiving. Tiatton of (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This may be the greatest headline ever

Even topping the immortal "Headless Body in Topless Bar".

Monkeys hate flying squirrels, report monkey-annoyance expert.

MDB (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Monkey annoyance expert?" WTF? Does he play peek-a-boo with a banana, or something? "Yes, the monkey is now annoyed." --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, while there is apparently at least one person on earth with the job description "monkey annoyance expert", I doubt you;ll find anyone who works as a "great white shark annoyance expert". Or "hungry grizzly bear annoyance expert."

I think I just like saying "monkey annoyance expert" MDB (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The best bit - "The research could pave the way for advanced methods of enraging monkeys." - just what the world needs, improved ways of upsetting primates. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"'...advanced methods of enraging monkeys.' - just what the world needs, improved ways of upsetting primates." Fox News does a fine job already : D Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Unknown unknowns

A while ago I read a blogpost about how dangerous "unknown unknowns" were, and how unwilling we are (as individuals and as groups) to acknowledge that they exist. The same blog post reference's Rumsfeld's infamous comment on the matter, and the blogger thought it the most intelligent thing anyone in government has ever said. I'm fairly certain the link to the post came through here... does it ring any bells? ^{ONE / TALK} 13:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

People often mistake that "known unknowns, and unknown unknowns..." thing for bollocks, but it is quite true (although the guy who originally said it could have presented it a lot better). What you might be thinking of is are Black Swans, which are major, often catastrophic, but rare and completely unpredictable events - they are the unknown unknowns because if you knew anything about them you'd have done something to stop it! I'm currently going through the book on the subject, but there are countless blog posts referencing the same kind of idea. One of Yudkowsky's longer posts on cognitive biases includes it, discussing the probabilities and so on, and that was definitely on WIGO, I'll try to find it. ^theist 14:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is actually considered standard practise in various industries, i.e. construction. When you create a budget for a project first you factor in a bunch of money for the "known unknowns" which is money put aside for things you know are going to screw up and will have to be re-built, ie a stair done incorrectly. No project -ever- gets done 100% perfectly in one go. Someone/something somewhere will screw something up. And then you actually have a bunch of money for things that are going to screw up beyond the things you knew will screw up. Sexy terms for them are contingency reserve and management reserve, Sen (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I don't think it's an issue of "not willing to acknowledge they exist" so much as, by definition, they are unknown. So trying overly hard to prepare for their existence is a fools game. By definition, you just cannot do it. I've only been involved with this as part of risk management for projects, and there's a lot of emphasis to try to figure them out, and as a result, oftentimes you make plans for shit that will never happen. Like, "Well, if a meteor hits the earth, and knocks out power, how will we keep the server running" Err.. Who gives a flying? And, although it may be true that it's an intelligent thing for government to say, I'm not sure we should qualify "stating the obvious" on such high terms. Like, "the sky is likely to be blue again tomorrow" could easily rank up there as well. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 16:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's all fun and games until the unknown unknown unknowns arrive... Sen (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, in Black Swan Taleb sees that the issue isn't that people don't think they exist but that they refuse to learn from them properly. Although there is a hint of people thinking they don't exist because they don't properly acknowledge the risk of such unknown quantities, which are real, but unknown and unknowable until after the fact. This doesn't make them unreal and non-existent (what did an atom look like in the time of Elizabet I long before the development of quantum mechanics? Unknown doesn't mean unreal). But the failing to learn seems to be Taleb's biggest point so far (I haven't finished reading it, although I do remember Yudkowsky blogging about it quite thoroughly, almost as if he was the one that invented it but I'm pretty sure he got it all from Taleb) i.e., they learn specifics as to prevent something happening again but don't learn the general rules around it. Hence why we now have tight as a ******'s **** security around planes and airports after 9/11 (which is still useless by the way), but no one learned that oppressing other religious groups, invading countries, fucking people over and swinging your dick about tends to piss people off to the point where they start terrorising your country with stupidly violent acts, and so on. The root causes of 9/11 weren't anything to do with locks on cockpit doors, and the response required was completely independent of whether a plane hit those towers or a bomb did, or whether it was a building in New York or Chicago, or the US or Brazil. Remember the big publicity stunt about getting Hollywood script-writers in to suggest things to prevent? Good idea? No. Because what are the odds that, out of the trillions and trillions of potential terrorist strikes that could occur anywhere, your script-writers are going to pick the exact same ones as a terrorist; well, let's say it rounds down to zero. Even still, because you've prevented it, it's not going to happen or even be remotely attempted so when an attack does happen it will, by definition, be in an area you didn't think about. And that's the nature of the Unknown Unknowns; instead of trying to prevent each specific one you need to develop your response to take them as they come and roll with them comfortably (and Taleb does say a few things about "positive" Black Swans too). But the real punchline in the 9/11 story comes when, despite the millions upon millions spent on "disaster preparedness", the US was completely caught with its pants down when Hurricane Katrina hit; they thought that "disaster preparedness" meant very specific terrorist attacks and didn't even think about natural events. ^theist 10:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Child (baby) abuse

Don't watch this! ^{Greg Laden Hat tip} 15:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The subtitled version is quite amusing, too. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's some good ol' Bible-bashin' child abuse for ya. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Loya Jirga..

I'm taking an extended wikibreak to work on some stuff, so I'm resigning my place on the Lurking Jugulars. See you in a few months. P-Foster (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, we don't do anything anyway. ħuman 07:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Church music

I'm putting together an order of service for a wedding and have stumbled upon something that I have suspected for many, many years... ALL HYMNS SOUND THE FUCKING SAME!!!!! It's mad, really. I'm thinking of randomly mixing up the words and music and seeing if anyone notices because damn, I can't tell the difference. ^theist 10:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

yer having HYMNs at a wedding ? why ? your only there 30 minutes tops. Hamster (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Great!

I send Pres Obama a birthday greeting, now I'm getting spammed by Joe Biden. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I got a very nice thank-you note from Barry, for signing the birthday card Michelle put together. ħuman 21:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I got the same thing that Human got. I also get the spam from Biden, among other groups like OFA, but I signed up for that stuff, so I don't mind it. Besides, that's how I knew that I could sign Obama's birthday card in the first place. All that spam is actually pretty fun to read, as you can see a bunch of rants from organizations saying "Kevin, will YOU help stop the tea party?!" or "The GOP is raising funds for an attack - please donate!" ~SuperHamster Talk 02:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And in our next story, Mel Gibson will address B'nai B'rith and the National Organization for Women

The subject above is false (to my knowledge.)

It is, however, true that Ann Coulter is going to address gay conservative group GOProud.

And I am not making this up: the group calls her "the right wing Judy Garland". MDB (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What in the fuck? ^theist 16:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with gay conservative groups. Most of them are classic small government types who take the philosophy "if we get the government off our backs they won't care what we do when we're on our backs".

But inviting a nasty homophobe like Ann Coulter... ick. (Of course, she's also BFF's with Matt Drudge, who is widely rumored to... uuummm... be a heavy user of loafer-lightener.) MDB (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I kind of have more sympathy for gay conservative groups because they understand that politics is more important than just one attribute, namely their sexuality. And I know several people who will vote as liberal as possible for that reason only - it's quite one-dimensional and dull. At least with conservative gay groups there's a hint of thinking about wider issues such as fiscal policy or immigration. But that's in the UK where social conservatism doesn't have homophobia in it by default. Conservatives in the UK aren't going out of their way to promote gay issues but they don't actively condemn them and actively go out of their way to deny them rights, i.e., Prop 8 would get Conservative support in the UK no problem. ^theist 16:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So, concerning Ken...

I saw this mentioned somewhat on the CP:WIGO talk page. Should we take it upon ourselves to honestly try and get some professional help for the dude? None of the people who are supposed to be close to him are going to do it and those mass editing binges are extremely worrisome. Photovoltaic Array (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ask on TWIGO:CP. But no, I've stopped caring personally. This is someone writing on the internet, it is not the be-all and end-all of their personality or character traits. If you want to get involved, personally, with people hundreds of miles away that you've never met just because you disagree with what they say, please be my guest. Don't bring a "we" into it. ^theist 10:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There are poor people in Pakistan in real need of help at the moment. It might be more useful to do something for them than worry about a YEC-nutter. I've looked at CP's main page and there isn't a word about the disaster; not even an offer of prayers. This amoral, atheist, humanist has already contributed at www.dec.org.uk. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives censor digg

They need a life--Thanatos (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Now why am I not surprised. --PsyGremlinPrata! 11:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Would I be misrepresenting the situation and wearing rose tinted glasses if I say that you'd never hear about this the other way around? I.e., liberal groups censoring conservative groups just doesn't happen. This rarely happens as it's usually the case that liberals will actively link to and show conservative sites happily. Primarily this is because one of the central tenets of liberal/progressivism (whatever you want to brand it as) is not treating people like idiots, and assuming that exposure to evidence will change peoples minds - that this is incorrect and exposure to evidence doesn't change peoples minds is beside the point. Therefore there is no motive to actively censor from the liberal prospective, not least because inquisitive people will want to know and will bypass the censorship happily. Liberals will link to it, show it, and then laugh at it while making the assumption (through psychological projection) that other people will also see it as stupid; hence liberals are aghast when they find someone who don't immediately disagree with conservative positions! On the other hand, social conservatism lends itself to authoritarianism (absolute morality determined from "on high" for example) and the mechanism for this propagating is through a systematic cycle of propaganda and censorship. We see a clear example with RW and CP, the latter being extremely conservative while the former is undeniably liberal despite attempts to be more inclusive. RationalWiki never censors stuff and frowns on such things, while linking to Conservapedia quite readily and quite possibly being responsible for the majority of their page views - link to it, laugh at it, and assume everyone will agree with you. On the otherhand, Conservapedia does no such thing and it would be unimaginable for them to do so. Similarly with YouTube comments where liberal channels tend not to use vote bots or filter comments, instead relying on the weight of people to use the voting systems as they see fit. Those recent Creationism vs Evolution Facebook groups where the Creation side make no mention of the counter group but the Evolution group actively says "here's the group we're responding to, feel free to join it too!" (well, words to that effect in the case of the latter clause). So indeed, Psygremlin is right to not be surprised, this is just another example of that method in action. If something ridiculously Right-wing gets onto Digg, it's probably someone on the Left saying "look at this funny shit!". Conversely we see people from the Right censoring any links to more Left-leaning posts. ^theist 12:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, I've always got the impression that liberals, or progressives, or whatever you want to call them.. Tend to abhor censorship. I mean, I won't read the most disgusting trash put out by people, but it's still their right to speak it. Even Stormfront has a right to be assholes. I won't digg them up, and will personally bury it, but the idea of creating a secret group just to bury shit I don't agree with is just.. Sick. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 12:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There's probably the exception to the rule, but I'd bet good money that 95% of any sites you see that moderate, or do not allow, comments; deletes comments they don't like; block users they disagree with; and remove links to sites they don't agree with, they would be conservative. I've seen plenty of conservative blogs, with things like "If you troll, you will be removed." Of course, in their case "trolling" means "saying something we disagree with." And then there's the bunch that are close to our hearts, who embody all of the above. Not to mention that DeanS's blog is "invite only." The one exception I can think of, is PZ Myers, who did edit Ken's attempts to link spam his evolution article (removed the link) and (I think) banned Ken. But that wasn't because of idealology, it was because Ken's an annoying little wanker. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This is true, and I don't mean to make blanket statements. It was supposed to be "in my experience." Part of the advantage conservatives have right now is there is a tight community, and liberals tend to.. well, think for themselves. (again, I don't mean to make a blanket statement, this is a refection of people I communicate with.) I always figured that was the point of the "Obama personality cult" if it could be called that far. His birthday this week being a good example. I signed his card. But I admit I felt a bit dirty doing it. But it did seem to work, at least this time. And in PZ's case, Ken was trolling. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 13:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

hang about! Just read the article - I've had several referrals to my blog from Digg Patriots, possibly from when I used to post to Digg & Stumble. That explains the lack of fame... fortune... groupies... --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"95% of any sites you see that moderate, or do not allow, comments; deletes comments they don't like; block users they disagree with; and remove links to sites they don't agree with..." We do all that. ħuman 21:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What worries me is that this way of dealing with liberalism seems to be becoming an accepted part of conservative culture. Look at Brietbart, Drudge and that fool from the Acorn videos. They are building up hate on dishonesty, and many conservatives are holding them up as heroes. β=(X′X)⁻¹X′Y 01:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Elsewhere

Democrats are splitting the tea party vote ^{Conservapedia Hat tip} - not sure how to take this but it looks similar but opposite - and much funnier! 13:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait a tic.. Wasn't it great that all the teabaggers were making the ticket? Now that they realize they shot themselves in the foot, it must be a liberal conspiracy? I admit, it may be true. Just as it may have been true that Republicans financed Ralph Nader the last few times he's run. (Why not? Conspiracy Theories are fun!!11) But it is a bit funny. As a Michigander, we actually don't recognize political affiliations of voters. Like, I think you can declare it, but it's not necessary. I think I'm "unaffiliated" right now. Changing it is as simple as walking into a Secretary of State office, and changing it. But last time I changed my address (and had to re-register at the new address) they told me not to bother with declaring myself anything. And I've stated elsewhere, that I voted in the republican primary this time. But to keep teabaggers the fuck away from office, however I was able to. If I'd wanted to guarantee a democrat would win, I'd have voted for the teabagger. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 14:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So you give voters a choice between a conservative and ultra-conservative candidate, and it's the liberals' fault that the conservative vote is diluted. Wow. There are some very "special" people running around in the US. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I love how helping somebody get on the ballot is tampering with an election. ħuman 21:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

TerryH, naughty naughty

Was looking at the article about this on Digg, and I saw in the comments that one user was accusing another user commenting, Temlakos, or being one of the gamers. Temlakos was indeed named in the alternet article. And Temlakos is the name TerryH goes by the the SDG. So I go to Temlakos's DP page, search for CP, and find....this. TerryH, you free speech-hating bastard. EddyP (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Did we expect anything less from that man? Good find Eddy. --PsyGremlinParla! 16:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe Temlakos is his username on several sites, e.g. Creationwiki & Twitter, and he even signed up here as both user:Temlakos and user:TerryH (but according to the SDG he immediately threw away the passwords). It's not a name that comes up on Google searches for anything other than a handle for TerryHatebutt. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Article-A-Week Club members

Get off yr goddamn asses and arses and brag. Remember the RationalWiki slogan: "We're not Citizendium." - David Gerard (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Most boring Sb post ever. ħuman 05:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got Black Swan on my to do list, but I'm probably going to wait until I've finished reading it first. ^theist 14:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorta articles-every-other-week, but working on Marjoe at the moment. --PsyGremlinTala! 14:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Bo Hansson dies at 67. WHY !!!!

For those who know of musician and composer Bo Hansson , he died in april this year. He was 67. Born april 10, 1943, died april 24, 2010. Hamster (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect because he was 67. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Bo Hansson. Wasn't that the guy who did that Lord of the Rings album in the mid 1970s? Strictly a Rick Wakeman wanna-be, and Wakeman was way out in pretentious land to begin with too. Secret Squirrel (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I was going to post something here...

...but I can't remember what it was. Oh well. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A russian man and a finnish man went to sauna

The russian died and the finn is still in a hospital. (at world championships, the finals were cut short after 6 mimutes) --85.76.49.3 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Worst. Punchline. Ever. Vulpius (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely calling Poe!

I'm sorry, but based on the childish commentary on these cards, I can only draw the conclusion that it is either a not-so-well hidden Poe's Law, or that someone we know well created them. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 20:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wow. They're like friendly dictator trading cards. Except, you know, without any artistic or literary merit. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why I suspect it absolutely has to be parody or made by Ken. Nobody can possibly make cards that childish and be serious. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 20:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You have seen the usual level of reason from sources we know to be serious, right? ^theist 22:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that. Thus why I left the Ken escape option. Either the source is a total parodist gaming the system, or holds logic and paranoia the are challenged only on a Ken-like level. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 22:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Clinical trial, comparing to established treatment

I have seeing a "clinical trial" methodology popping up more and more lately. It is talked about on dynamiclear article, but I saw it as well with Heel and their traumeel product. It is a bit of a subtle manipulation that makes the studies worthless but is subtle enough to be missed by people unfamiliar with experimental pitfalls or people just casually glancing.

It goes something like this:

Take woo product A and established medical treatment or drug B.

Gather a group of people with the symptoms to be treated and divide the group in half.

Give one half A and one half B.

Compare improvement after some amount of time.

If there is no difference then A has to be as good as B, and since B is approved for treatment and is accepted then A should be too.

Some look quiet impressive at first pass, but the issue is that there is no control. Without a control you can make the conclusion they are trying to make. You have to compare the amount of improvement to people who received no treatment. Headaches are a great example, if you do the above method but don't look for improvement till 2 days later your likely to see 95 percent improvement in both groups because headaches go away naturally in a time less than the observation time of the experiment.

I can see why woo pushers like these study designs. They can incorporate all the buzz words for good clinical design, random assignment, double blind, etc. But still have the results come out positive for their product. But its a fundamental methodological flaw that voids all the research.

I think it would make an interesting article to discuss it but I am not sure what to call it. Anyone got any ideas? Thoughts? tmtoulouse 21:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No idea what to call it, but I've seen legitimate studies done that use similar methodologies but with actual control and proper blinding. The recently completed study that demonstrated St. John's Wort was totally useless at treating depression, for example, was run in parallel with a conventional anti-depressant, and neither actually worked worth a damn. Of course, the woo community is all over making excuses for their pet quack nostrum, not least of which "well, the alternative doesn't work either..."

Still, I think you'd need more examples before it justifies an article. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I (red)linked it, Trent. We should have snartikle on topic. ħuman 09:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Randomized controlled trial? ^theist 09:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading the study outline above in some more detail, I can spot some issues with the "control" aspect. Basically, the overall design is fine, but devil is in the detail in this case. A control is more than "doing nothing", it has to be because of the placebo effect and that doing something is always going to work better than doing nothing (unless your cure for headache is decapitation, but let's assume no unwanted side-effects). But for ethical (as well as practical) reasons it also has to be more than just a placebo, usually it's the established treatment; we don't want to know if something works better than a placebo, we want to know if it works better than what we're already prescribing; as despite some claims of alternative medicines working only as placebos (homeopathy being one of the rare ones that really does) it's not difficult to beat a totally non-active placebo. So your design above is fine, the established drug (assume it has been control tested against something else or a placebo too) acts as the control. Furthermore acts as the standards to beat, as if you just compared Woo Product A with a placebo, how do you thoroughly compare it against the Established Product B? The issue comes not with these aspects of design (although randomisation/blinding/control are important and if they aren't present, such as with recent "fish oil trials" and the proposed phonics one in UK schools, proper alarm bells should ring) but the acts of randomisation and the design of a placebo themselves, i.e., how are these achieved? Case study. I was reading a study on the effect of SeaBands, a particular acupressure treatment for motion sickness, that were labelled in the abstract and randomised and controlled, which they were but a more thorough analysis of the written methodology is needed. The overall design was okay, it directly compared the SeaBands (which have specific "acupressure balls" inside them to press on a certain area) with what were basically normal sweat bands. This satisfies the overall idea of trial design nicely and would suffice for someone doing a science project at school. However, was this a true control? The method stated that the nurse picked a box at random and then instructed the person in how to put it on. Immediately the blinding becomes an issue because obviously the practitioner would know the difference, and studies have shown that such knowledge transfers across at the subconscious level to affect the placebo response. Secondly, it was implied that the placebo bands were just placed on the wrists, while for the SeaBands the patients were given instructions about how to find the acupressure point - obviously, acupressure needs the pressure at specific points. But this is where the design falls down and ceases to be a fair trial because the complex intervention is then stronger in the SeaBand group rather than the control group - it would be like comparing a homeopathic treatment involving a doctor giving an extended explanation of treatment and care and then giving out the placebo with a "here, take this and piss off"; you have not minimised the variables in this case. So, a proper control requires a lot of detailed looking at the design of how the control is managed. Pills are easy, because you can make a sugar pill look the same as a "real" pill no problem. Similarly, homeopathic treatments are easy because they're water. In this case, double-blinding can also be quite easy. Acupuncture is more difficult, although you can stab randomly rather than specific points for your control (but given the thousands of acupuncture points that have now been "discovered" you'd have trouble trying to miss them). Others are difficult and you have to be a bit more creative; for SeaBands, I'd give everyone the same generic instructions about moving the "white spot" to the right place and then issue them the random box, rather than have a nurse instruct it post facto, you then minimise the interaction after the blinding disappears. Anyway, that's my essay over, if someone wants to figure out how to article-ify this screed, please do. ^theist 11:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. One could design a study of headaches comparing fairy dust (TM) and being whacked on the head with a hammer. Fairy Dust will likely "win" but that doesn't mean dick, does it? -- -PalMD ^{--Yee haw!} 15:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

More accurate than normal

Glenn Beck telling it like it is, with 100% accuracy?--Thanatos (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's frightening how well they make fun of Beck's tendency to promote himself by seeming modest by pretending to make fun of himself. (Wow, that sounds a lot more confusing when you say it that way!) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

War on Salvia

Found this news report on the use of salvia. I kind of want to shoehorn it into some article somewhere but not sure which one. It's proper moral panic stuff, at times it seems to slip into Onion or Brass Eye territory but it's a real news report. ^theist 15:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Bah, I didn't have my reading glasses on and at first glance thought it was a "War on Saliva". Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about an intentional misspelling for it... :P ^theist 12:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Luckily my collection is safely tucked away in my herb garden. Maybe we need an article on salvia? Or maybe just point to Erowid or here or here. --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Like this one? Or like, a real, full article? And I've tried it, did nothing for me. So I hardly see the point of the moral panics about it. Around here, it's all about binaural beats, and K2.. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 18:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Fucking magnets!

So our washing machine (Hotpoint: The Finest Of British Attention To The Wrong Detail) just let out a couple of really loud electrical POPs and stopped working, blowing both its own plug fuse and the extension cord's plug fuse (both 13 amps - it's always fun when a large AC-powered electric motor shits itself). So I go pottering around the Comet website to ascertain the lay of the land. And what do I see? They offer this piece of woo with every machine. In fact, they preselect it on all order forms. FUCKING WOO ARGH. So, the question is: Advertising Standards Authority, Office of Fair Trading or both? And have any gone before me in the UK taken Fucking Magnet Woo to said bodies that you know of? - David Gerard (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I might be wr- wr- wroooo- thatwordyouknowtheone: http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/descal.html

(The bit where he says "they sell well so they probably do something," um ...) - David Gerard (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that guy is talking about if you have the area where limescale builds up inside the magnetic field. And he's talking field strengths quite a bit above what you'd expect from something they sell in a shop. If you just pass it through a field, it can't do anything. It's not chemically active - if magnetic fields were chemically active, my entire line of analytical research wouldn't exist - so it can't make a permanent change. While I can believe it affecting crystal growth if you have it permanently in the field, just passing through can't do anything. There's little info that I can find on it, however. ^theist 22:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The only proper source I can track down are a couple of letters sent into the editor of Water-Engineering and Management journal. Both on the title "...attracts skepticism" but I can't access the content as that journal isn't online. Changing the search terms to something more general about water treatment brings up a few more but it will take a while to go through it all. ^theist 23:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking like top quality Class A BS. ^theist 23:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck am I doing we have this article. I must have forgot about it. ^theist 23:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hence my surprise. More links on my lamejournal, from a friend who's actually a mathematician. It doesn't defy physics; whether it defies engineering is another - David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"Washing machines last longer with Calgon™" except in my area they don't. Our lovely Welsh water is as soft as a marshmallow baby's bottom. Living in London I had luxuriant white fur in my kettle, after a month in our new house it had completely disappeared. However, the bloody Hotpoint still died. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Because I hate you all

Here, go gouge your eyes out. (Bonus!: The background changes each time you refresh.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Holy fuck, that's borderline dangerous. I suppose I should thank you for at least including a warning, but I won't since it just made me more curious. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of my old Geocities page :) --PsyGremlinRunāt! 16:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Mind telling me what your Geocities address was? I'd love to look it up on the Wayback Machine so I can mock you with it : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Meme source

Please help! Where did the whole "I want not approve on it. I think polite post." thingy spring from. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 16:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I recall someone answering that question about a month ago. Can't recall the answer though ;-( 18:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

See here 19:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Googling, it appears to be a deliberate attempt to create a meme. The words: "I wish not approve on it. I think polite post. Expressly the appellation attracted me to be familiar with the unscathed story." and near variants have been dropped into numrous blog comments since about 2006. 19:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a badly-translated spambot, per the example in the dyslexicon. The point is to create text that won't be deleted out of hand but contains one's link - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Tnetennba was a much better attempt at making a meme intentionally. ^theist 19:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Under new management!

Just a note to everyone, The RationalWiki Foundation is now officially a legal entity and we are in the middle of transferring ownership of everything from me to it. The only major change at the moment is that I can no longer get donations to me personally, but will have the information to donate to the Foundation in a few days. The other issue is we will be working on the bylaws and the election procedures for allowing you the users of the site to elect the first round of trustees to manage RationalWiki. We will keep everyone informed questions/comments can be dropped anywhere. tmtoulouse 21:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So, in other words, this place is now, officially, Human's Wiki? At least it's official now..... The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 21:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Damn you, getting that comment in before me! - David Gerard (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Three cheers for abstract legal entities! : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Meh, nothing really changes, my penchant for using large scale appliances in parallel is still the single greatest threat to this site. And a vastly under appreciated threat I might add. tmtoulouse 21:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it just common sense to not run the oven, washing machine, dryer, and dishwasher simultaneously when you live in an apartment? : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This just shows your liberal deceit and lack of entrepreneurial values - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Just wait until my army of sockpuppets gets me elected President-for-Life! You'll lament the day you ever instituted this change, Trent. Mark my words: you will lament! DickTurpis (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As this is a fairly serious thing, there is a plan in place to prevent sockpuppetry. ^theist 01:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser? Lyra § talk 02:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, as a very real and highly regarded member in good standing of this site, I am completely in favor of the dictatorship of Turpis. Please consider this one vote for Dick Turpis as President-for-Life. Tick Durpis (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to bring to y'all's attention that Nutty Roux has done his fair share to protect the site as he can, as a world class powerful motherfucking litigator and all around badass with good judgment and an even tone. Yeah. Rutty Noux (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that any Trustees positions would be actual serious business, and not just people dicking around (a la the Lurking Jugulars), would I be right in guessing that the plan to prevent sockpuppetry is simply "provide your real name and phone number"? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Real names are likely to be an important part of being a Trustee. The issue over sock puppets and voting can be solved by requiring users to have been active on the site for some unit of time (like a year) and have some unit of edits (like 500-1000). Most people do not invest in a sock puppet to that level, and certainly not many sock puppets. tmtoulouse 02:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea. As you can see from my signature, however, I have been active member of this site for well over a year. In fact, I made this comment decades ago. My vote for Turpis as Pooh-bah extraordinaire stands. Viva la Turpis! Tick Durpis (talk) 03:16, 17 August 1963 (UTC)

Toast and I could have a vote each then? 02:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course we can. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 02:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mmm... nice. 02:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Susan for the win, indeed. Yes, that's quite likely. ħuman 03:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Try the fish!

We know it made you ill last month, but now all will be better! ħuman 03:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I still have my doubts, Human. I'll stick with the chicken. By the way, have you checked our inflatable pilot recently? Lyra § talk 05:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Christianity in America...

...is becoming more and more secular. I bet CP isn't going to put this one on the main page. Statistic from this: 25% of Americans 18-25 are not affiliated with a religion, for one... Lyra § talk 08:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"...many people who call themselves Christian don't really believe, deep down, in the tenets of their faith." - an interesting explanation, one I've long thought true considering the rise of people looking to "prove" the Bible and this constant need for reassurance and validation amongst the most evangelical. Indeed, assuming the usual result of severe cognitive dissonance, it might seem very reasonable that the most evangelical people are the ones with the most shaken faith (that the most homophobic preachers often turn out to be gay may also fit this model). ^theist 14:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. My impression is that what has been described as "The New Atheism" isn't really an organic movement in and of itself, but rather a reaction to "The New Fundamentalism" which is a more or less wholly unremarked movement. It's my opinion that the steep decline of mainstream Christianity, the modest increase in evangelical and "born again" type institutions and the accompanying wave of shallow fundamentalism (creationism, wrapping up god and country, etc.) is the last gasp of religion in the west. It's pretty much all over for Christianity now. Notionally a majority still believe, but they don't do the things necessary to infect the next generation like go to a church regularly or indoctrinate their kids. My prediction is that by 2060 or so, Christianity will be in minority in western Europe and heading that way in North America. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd love that to be the case, but, given that humans remain apes with pretensions whose genes think they're on the African savannah, I'm not inclined to be that optimistic. Perhaps Christianity will go away (though I really doubt it), but if it did then something just as stupid would spring up - David Gerard (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

While I partially agree that extreme evangelism is one of the death throes of organized religion, I don't think it's the end of belief itself. After all, we're looking at "non-religious" being a fast growing position, not atheism being a fast growing sector (although difference is difficult to detect in polls as it greatly depends on the wording, which is never consistent). I would also never put a date on it ending. It might get replaced by something else, but religion isn't just going to die like that, that's just not how it works because if it was, it would have died by now. ^theist 18:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a paradox but by not having an established church I believe that the USA has encouraged religion. In the UK our muddled CofE has had a de facto monoply on religion for nearly 500 years, this has led to complacency. In the USA there is a highly competitive marketplace for religion. In addition with a high GDP and generous tax reliefs there is a strong economic incentive for people to take the religious route as a career (you wouldn't find any UK cleric with their own private jet or stretch limo). With the concept of tithing still in existance there is a strong economic impetus to keep religion going. Once recruited to a church you need to keep people frightened so that they do not stray, this is why the more authoritarian aspects of the Bible and the coming Rapture are pushed by the Evangelicals (albeit subconciously). Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This semester my paper is "religion and current issues". The topic I have choosen is Christian Fundamentalism in the United States. There is much in the way of current research topics out there. Ace^X-102 09:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sinners

You're (probably) all sinners ^{Hat tip}. Aren't you? 16:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

They should've switched to a different backdrop for this particular article. Röstigraben (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't show anything to me (I'm on a phone) What is it? 17:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh...I see... ^theist 17:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't: Explain please! 17:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Their standard background graphic has a few stylized inkblots, which are easily misinterpreted in this context...let's blame Freud. Röstigraben (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Aah, I see (or rather I don't see). When Ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be told what it's really about. Thanx, I thinx. 17:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think ostensibly they're blood splatters, but of course, we have the sexual maturity of 12 year olds here who see vaginas in all of the Rorschach tests. ^theist 18:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you expect, when Rorschach based all his test blots on vaginas - David Gerard (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds it a bit creepy that their "youth" website seems to be focused on nothing but sex? Not a single other f-ing interest. Sen (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Their model looks distinctly undernourished, and why does he have his hand in his pocket?

If you are using masturbation to medicate pain - is this some new woo, the placebo effect or a genuine medical breakthrough? I think we should be told because it could save the NHS millions. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Such a breakthrough would also encourage people to seek medical assistance. — Pietrow ☏ 16:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Say three Hail Marys and have a wank. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A theory

For a long time I have suspected that there is something wrong with the popularity of Rationalwiki. How can such a nerdy site with a logo of a wrinkled ass have so many users?! I took a closer look at edits made here and did some research and reached the conclusion that Rationalwiki has only two, maybe three users. One user is me, but all other "users" is actually one person with million sockpuppets. Well, maybe there is one more user who was similarly to me deluded into thinking that Rationalwiki has many editors, although it obviously hasn't.

This one user with million sockpuppets clearly has no life at all. I thought that maybe this nolifer has one true and honest user account and speculated who it might be - I think it's either Human or *YO N-DUZ NA NA NIIII* (look here).

The game is over: Human or *YO N-DUZ NA NA NIIII*, you can stop playing, I have exposed you. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Fuck. Rumbled. ^theist 18:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No one cares about you any more, Marcus. Let me help you. Open resolv.conf, find the line that starts "127.0.0.1" and add "rationalwiki.org" to the end of it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And the award for most ironic post of the day goes to... the idiot who complains about socks while using one of his many socks! Lyra § talk 18:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

How many of you honestly think that I am Marcus? Because I most certainly am not. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello John, hope your brother is recovering well in a secure hospital somewhere. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Idiot #57:MarcusCicero::Wikinterpreter:Bohdan. And you recently called Marcus a "nice guy." Come on, now. Lyra § talk 08:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So? He is sometimes funny. But do I go around all day saying "ahh, David has no social skills" or other such stuff? No, I simply write some pottery and that's all. I'm not Marcus. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Good to see another artist. I was about to go and glaze and bake some poetry. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 16:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I have fifty pounds to mend the shed? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Best. Wikipedia. Article. Ever.

Regulate (Song) Be sure to read the synopsis. --MJMelcher (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Classic. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 14:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

P != NP

Pending peer review, but still --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 18:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it turns out he isn't a random engineer who thinks he has solved a massively complex problem that many editors see. So, it is possible, but I'll wait till the peer review process takes hold.--MJMelcher (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe I found out about this here and not on #esoteric. Ah, well. Word stupid Hoover! 21:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This was the big story where I work today. - π 12:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Gods, 25% of Americans are still birthers

CNN Poll: Quarter doubt Obama was born in U.S.. What's slightly more depressing: Forty-two percent of those questioned say they have absolutely no doubts that the president was born in the U.S., while 29-percent say he "probably" was. Junggai (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That's about right really - since the US vote is split pretty much down the middle, this means about half of all Republicans are mad cwazy in de hed. Which is about what I'd have guessed. But where are all the likable, sensible Republicans these days? If half are bonkers, it should be very very simple for the smart, electable Republicans to point this out, but they're all just running totally terrified of pissing off this 'base'. The big question is can the cwazy ones overthrow the sensible ones in November? I do hope so, it could be most entertaining to watch. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The nuts always scream louder than the rational people. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 02:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Republican Party has been taken over by it's lunatic fringe. It's the end result of letting talk radio build their base for two decades now. They have a very hard core, very loyal base, but it's a base that demands ideological purity. If the moderates question them, they'll get driven out.

Nixon, Ford and Bush the Elder would be driven out of today's Republicans. (The conservatives never like Ike, anyway.) The Barry Goldwater who ran for President in 1964 probably would be welcome, but not the retired Goldwater who didn't like the Religious Right one bit, and supported gays in the military (his philosophy was he didn't care if a soldier was straight, he just wanted them to shoot straight.)

Hell, they'd probably have issues with Reagan, if not drive him out just for supporting amnesty for illegal aliens. (To be fair, the hard core conservatives had their doubts about Reagan early on. He only became their idol later.)

I've got an essay on this topic in my head. One of these days, it will move from my head to my keyboard. MDB (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Good Bishop has Again Broken His Silence!

Or so I suspect. I'm sure many of you are familiar with the Sean Manchester drama, and his tendency to use sock puppets. Tonight (59 minutes ago to be precise) a youtube user named Prince Anton Voytek left this comment on one of my youtube videos about Manchester (the projection is hilarious):

"@scepticalpreacher

And some people are so full of themselves internally that they think they have the self-ordained duty to cast aspersions on someone else out of a jumped -up sense of superiority.

Grow up,and realize realize that there is a dark side,and this man fights it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT6664dldkA --Mustex (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

On another note, I checked his blog, and he's now at least updated it to show a pic of me from my youtube channel, and has stopped calling me an anonymous coward.--Mustex (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You completely missed a golden opportunity to wear white makeüp and a cape and speak in a Transylvanian accent. Shame on you. Word stupid Hoover! 14:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Has he come to your house yet? Wielding a stake or otherwise. ^theist 11:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be sure to wear some flowers in my hair...

San Francisco, anyone been there? If so were is a good place to stay cheepish and what is worth seeing? (I am trying to get tickets to the Niners v Raiders) - π 12:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been, but it's probably been over fifteen years since I was there last.

The most important thing I learned was the meaning of a quote from Mark Twain, "the coldest winter I ever spent was one summer in San Francisco." I was there in April or May, and I thought, "oh, it's sunny California; I won't need heavy clothes!"

Wrong.

I was at Fisherman's Wharf, and nearly froze. I had to buy a sweatshirt to take the ferry out to Alcatraz.

Fisherman's Wharf, as I remember, is fun, though very "touristy". Alcatraz is interesting, if you want to see an old prison, but it's a lot of walking. MDB (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

One my last international trip in I was watching a documentary on the way home (I didn't feel like watching Avatar on a 7 inch monitor) and the guy claimed that it is that cool breeze that comes in from the Pacific across the bay that actual prevents California from being a desert. - π 12:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I was there last year. Fisherman's Wharf was nice. Of course you'll have to ride the trolley, and I quite liked Chinatown. And maybe it's just me, but I really enjoyed the Golden Gate park, with the botanical gardens, Japanese tea garden and California academy of sciences. --GTac (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Last time I went, I stayed in Redwood City. Partially because I had business out at the university campus down mountain view way, but also because I think it's actually a deal more convenient for San Francisco proper. It's also cheaper. Basically, it's a short walk to the caltrain station then 30 mins on the train to get wherever you're going. Oh, and don't waste your money on the MOMA. It's shit :D Oh, and if you want to go to one of the other islands than Alcatraz in the bay, which are quite nice if you like that sort of thing, plan ahead. The ferries aren't very regular. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, San Fransisco has excellent public transport. Also, if you want to go to Alcatraz, I think you have to make a reservation in advance so don't forget to do that. --GTac (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if you want a day trip out of the city, Old Sacramento is worth seeing. Again, very touristy but lots to do. Sacramento is about a two hour drive from SF. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. - π 13:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I spent a summer in Berkely. Smoked a lot of pot. Met a lot of hippies. Good times. 86.40.102.192 (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'd recommend staying away from the tourist quarters of the city and hit some of the parks. You'll find weed cookies very easily and meet a lot of interesting characters. 86.40.102.192 (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am shocked, shocked to learn that illicit drugs are easily accessible in San Francisco. Why, next you'll be telling me that there are homosexuals there! MDB (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The best weed I ever smoked was in San Fran/Berkely. And I spent 3 weeks in Amsterdam. 86.40.102.192 (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I for one find it pretty pathetic to waste your vacation trip on drugs. And I've been a lot to Amsterdam. --GTac (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I was working on those occasions and not on 'vacation' (What a vile American English term - its 'holiday', you donut) Also, drugs is a great way to spend your time in either Amsterdam or San Francisco, the characters wouldn't be the same sober. 86.40.102.192 (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I found that a quick J added a certain je ne sais quoi to the Van Gogh museum, not to mention the canal cruise or hanging out in a market in Jordaan. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I found that the worst part of Amsterdam are the annoying drug tourists who think it's okay just to smoke weed wherever and bother people while stoned. I don't know wherever you're from, but just imagine that a bunch of tourists would visit your town to drink alcohol. Apparently it's a real big thing to them, and they spent all of their time drunk and bothering people. Hey, I like beer too, but it's kinda sad if it means that much to you. See where I'm coming from? --GTac (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I live in Blackpool where what tourists do is come and drink beer and bother people - we're one of the stag night hot-spots so I can see what you mean but I spent quite a bit of my time in Amsterdam and didn't bother anyone. Jack Hughes (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know how ESTA works?

Do I get one of these in place of a visa? - π 13:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also why do so many fake sites come up before the actual website on google? - π 13:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If you live in a visa waiver country, then yes. Basically, it's like the visa waiver programme of old but with the all new paranoia. Just follow the instructions on the website, and you'll be branded a terrorist in no time and denied entry. :D --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Remember that the "correct" answer to "Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide?" is "No". I'm sure that one trips up plenty of terrorists. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that question went on to ask if you were a Nazi Party member between 1939 and 1945. So is it okay to travel to the US if you were a Nazi party member between 1933 and 1938? - π 23:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

But they don't ask you if you are now, or have ever been, a member of the communist party any more. Now is our time to strike, comrades. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Approved with in a minute. My favourite question was "Have you ever detained, retained or withheld custody of a child from a U.S. citizen granted custody of the child?" people obviously have more complex lives than mine. - π 23:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Smörgåsbord of woo

http://spiritspacemovie.com/ Enjoy. ^theist 12:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Spiritual and Scientific Witches"

So, I was randomly browsing some of the internets out there when I came across this interesting site. As well as claiming to house "Spiritual and Scientific Witches" (whatever a Scientific Witch is), they seem to offer numerous services and products, including tarot readings. "I have been utilizing the power of the Tarot for over 15 years. The deck I use has been with me since I began my journey as a reader and spiritual counselor. Because of this, we have a very special intuitive bond. This gives me the most genuine and solid reading results". Quite. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Cracked Presents 5 UFO Sightings That Even Non-Crazy People Find Creepy

http://www.cracked.com/article_18690_5-ufo-sightings-that-even-non-crazy-people-find-creepy.html You got to admit this stuff is just flipping weird.Ryantherebel (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If someone cares, there's a short thread about the Cracked list in the Bad Astronomy forum: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/106669-5-UFO-Sightings --ZooGuard (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, ZooGuard! I was curious what the actual explanations for those phenomena were. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It bugs me whenever Cracked does things like that. They have moments of greatness, which make me fall in love with them, and then they go and write crap like this, which even to a layperson obviously consists of cherry-picking a single favorable study. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's important to note that different articles on Cracked are written by different people, and some of those people are pathetic morons. --signed by an Onion^{talk edits} 20:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I know, I know, but it's still a real let down. The editors could take the opportunity to shape the site into something funny and smart, or they can let any old crud through if it's dressed up enough. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that they often go through dry spells when their better writers either don't have anything to say or just can't be arsed, and so they put a lot of crap out. It might be gradually getting worse as the pool of good ideas slowly dwindles and we're left with lists that are just subjective opinions of authors or completely fabricated. ^theist 20:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand David Wong is a poster over at JREF so there should be some pro sanity bias.Geni (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's really hit or miss with cracked. The article I hated most was this stupid piece of sh*t. --GTac (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

On School Prayer

Inspired by a comment on RPGnet, done by me. No idea where the original picture is from. If anyone wants to burn a sock to post it on CP, be my guest. --Gulik (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The original is by a DeviantART stock artist called mjranum (original here). I recognised the background style as well as the rubber bones, which I've used before. I believe his rights are fairly lax providing there's credit. ^theist 22:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering that upload rights are only granted to a privileged few, asking someone to kill sock for this seems a bit steep unless they were one of the Fab Five. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, right. And I guess it's not possible to link to images on other sites? (Tried doing that with this pic, but couldn't figure out how. Durr.) --Gulik (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hotlinking isn't embedded by default in MediaWiki, there might be an extension but I doubt CP will have it. ^theist 20:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You can only embed external images if they are hosted on Wikimedia Commons - just use the original filename and if it hasn't been uploaded here it will get it from commons. Not that this helps with the picture above. --Unsigned by someone who was too lazy to log in. 13:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Rebellion needs You!

For all those who are fans of the I.M.P.S. (and you know who you are you dirty buggers) Time Magazine is holding a poll of the best ever Star Wars Fan Films. It's a YouTube thingy so be prepared to support the dark Empire Google, but if you are willing to do that go here to post the name of your favorite Star Wars Fan Flick.

This nerd broadcast^TM will end in 3……2……1……0.5……0.25……0.125…-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to say The Wrath of Khan. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 11:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

4... 2... 1... 0.5... surely. ^theist 12:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mathematically accurate, would kill the joke.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ironically enough I just saw Fanboys for the first time not that long ago. Now I know how musicans feel when they watch This Is Spinaltap. >.>; -Tygrehart

So how long has RW been gaming Conservapedia?

Ok, so I found Conservapedia about 2 years ago, regularly started following their news just over 1 year ago and getting into the Diffs and Recent Changes soon after. Then I found RationalWiki and stopped doing all the work myself (Thanks guys)! So over that time I built up my own view of the madness that is Assfly, his gang and Conservapedia but never really stopped to think about how organised some of the vandals are. With some of the stuff I see going by about major accounts and moles it's completely thrown my view out the window.

So I was wondering just quite how long have you guys been gaming Conservapedia, rather than just watching, logging and commenting on the crazy? Aslate (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Terry Koeckritz! Yes, our major vandal accounts are "Aschlafly", "TK", and "Conservative" and they've been going from the start. You would be shocked how many people think they're serious! TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The first great pwn-by-character-sock was pre-RW in March 07, so it's all Richard's fault. --Robledo (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been at it for way too long. Can't talk about which accounts--wouldn't want to get them banned. I did have some fun with the "Barack HUSSEIN!!@!!@!!1scarynegro!!! Obama" article, though. --Gulik (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually have a secret vandal account at CP. *blushing * --Idiot number 59 (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, IN59, I promised I would tell nobody that you're JPatt, so your secret is safe with me. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 11:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The secret forum for organising vandal attacks and destroying Conservapedia can be found here. ^theist 12:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Boorrrrringgg.....

It seems to me that nothing interesting happens here. Where is the drama? Where are the tears? Just give me reason, give me inspiration to write more poems. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

My smokin' hot Lativian Facebook friend complained about being bored. I sent her this and it cheered her up immensely. Hopefully it will do the same for you. --PsyGremlinHable! 11:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind the youtube, send me a smokin' hot latvian facebook friend. --Opcn (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Pointless fact of the day: King Louie wasn't in the original Rudyard Kipling The Jungle Book, thus Cub Scouts don't have him as a nickname for their leaders (Akela), despite them often using the Disney versions of the characters as unofficial logos/images. ^theist 12:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. Kipling never struck me as a fan of swing music. --PsyGremlinParla! 12:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Retarded Teabaggers

Third post down - things they have learned after 53 pages of discussion. The OP is pretty shocking as well - "Are Buddhists and Hindus Muslims?" They wonder about Sikhs as well. EddyP (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

... As opposed to "well educated, intelligent teabaggers?" I missed that memo. And of course Hindus and Buddhists are Mulsin.. Look at their skin color! Darky Terrorists, all of them. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 13:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it shows more of an ignorance for the outside world than genuine stupidity. Knowing about Sheiks and Buddhists is that nasty liberal multi-culturism / worldview stuff, that they're so terrified of. Still, it's sad to see so much stupid on display. Even if you only read the paper, you should know the difference between Muslims, Buddhists and Sheiks. Oh, and "there are no moderate Muslims." Yeah, that's going to win you plenty of friends. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 13:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Psy, it's Sikhs (adherents to Sikhism) rather than Sheiks (Arabic princes). Word stupid Hoover! 13:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Damnit! Blown my deep cover! Ok, I confess, I'm a tea partier, cleverly disguised as somebody intelligent. (Actually, it was an epic fail on the part of me and Firefox's spell check :) --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Looked at the last page (60). It starts with a comparison of Muslims to rattlesnakes. Had to look again at the URL to make sure I hadn't accidentally went to Stormfront.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

XD On page 60 someone talks about how the Australians are standing up to muslims by making them learn "Australian". EddyP (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I refuse to believe that is real... ^theist 15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It is. It's an off-shoot of the Tea Party Patriots forum - the creator was legit, but was banned (my sock got into a few arguments with him) and most of the other members left the main forum or were banned after the main forum prohibited discussions of religion (including Islam/terrorism and the NY mosque). EddyP (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait... now I know conservative lurve teh banahmmer... but they blocked the creator??? Brilliant! Bad news for TK tho, that means he's already been upstaged. Good to know there's enough nutty to go round. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did they ban discussion of religion? Was it demonstrating that the Tea Baggers really are a bunch of bigots? MDB (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

^theist 16:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Psy - I mean that the creator of the off-shot was banned from the main. MDB - there was some rather volatile discussions going on - one, 'Tenneseeans fighting to stop muslims' had over 400 posts. EddyP (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Told you I was having a dim day. --PsyGremlinSprich! 16:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking Warn mankind

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100809/world/science_space_hawking this shit is scary Waronstupidity (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If we want to survive we must leave Earth and avoid contact with Alien at all cost.Waronstupidity (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not really "scary"; none of this stuff is short-term. Any alien "invasions" (read: big rocks going at 0.99c) will probably be centuries down the line, and the rest is just what we knew already: people will kill each other given half the chance, so don't give it to them. Word stupid Hoover! 14:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Hawking is slightly pessimistic on that front. I think it might be counter productive to outright assume aliens would be dangerous, he's mostly basing it on evidence from human culture; crusades and colonisation for instance. ^theist 14:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comparing it to the crusades shows a complete lack of understanding of the logistics of interstellar warfare. To even throw a big rock at 0.9c at some planet in a system 100 ly away requires a phenomenal amount of time, effort, computational power, giant freaking space cannons and knowledge of orbital dynamics, all to no particular gain. The crusades were decidedly simpler. Word stupid Hoover! 14:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Phil Plait (or at least Death from the Skies), the most likely invasion scenario is von Neuman probes set to "kill everything". BTW, anyone else here been pwned by a Slylandro Probe? :) --ZooGuard (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot about VnPs. But they wouldn't be used against a specific target; they're an indiscriminate weapon. Any species xenocidally insane enough to use them would probably do it regardless of whether they detected other civilisations or not. Word stupid Hoover! 14:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not just any bandages...

So I was spending my time with my cousins in Texas this weekend, and since the majority of them are girls, we naturally ended up going shopping. While in a random store that sold nifty things from all over the world (including three-legged piggy figurines from Chile that my mama wouldn't buy for me, since I left my wallet at home), I came across some bandages...that is, Jesus bandages. What I find interesting is that each tin came with a supposed collectible prize inside. I wonder what it was? Little wooden crosses? Jesus figurines? I dunno, but I think it's pretty odd, especially the fact that people have apparently actually bought them. ~SuperHamster Talk 17:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus bandages? Do they come in stigmata-size? MDB (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Buy two, get one free Jesus. Aw, but I wanted a free Bwian. --PsyGremlinSprich! 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I see it's that nice Caucasian Jesus on their bandages. 17:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia night editing feature

Does anybody know how Conservapedia implements it in the MediaWiki software? I don't see an extension in cp:Special:Version that does it. I swear, swear I'm not trying to do anything naughty, I'm just curious. PhillipA (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know it's not called "night editing". I think it's done through "siteadmin" which according to Mediawiki allows locking and unlocking the database (which blocks all interactions with the web site except viewing). Deprecated by default. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

They just lock and unlock the database manually. It's not a special extension or anything automatic. They just call it "night mode" because they tend to switch it off late at night (US time) when nerds are more likely to be online and wanting to contribute to vandalise the site. ^theist 20:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Night Mode and Siteadmin are different. Going by the "error messages" when you try View Source (when not logged in), it really seems to be a simple config file edit to take the "Edit pages (edit)" right away from the "Users" group. Maybe someone hacked together a small script to do it, but it doesn't seem to be any sort of fancy extension. --Sid (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait, who has night mode control now? If they haven't got a proper interface set up and it's activated through editing MediaWiki's PHP files, then it's a position of almost unbelievable power; you can run your own arbitrary code. Word stupid Hoover! 20:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got an implementation of night mode ready to go if anyone is interested in implementing it here. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

...why would anybody here wish to implement one of the most damaging things CP ever did to itself? *blinks* --Sid (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has suggested adding night mode here; we're talking about CP's implementation, which seems to be really stupid. I really can't see Andy having the intelligence to use an FTP client to access CP's server and then make the required changes to LocalSettings.php. Word stupid Hoover! 21:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Because Andy is not the site's administrator, CPWebmaster one of Andy's present/former students is. Looking at the graphs Larron made, it seems it use to be manual, but is now automated. - π 23:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Storyline

I like to write stories, but sadly I come up with far too many story lines to write them all. But, I thought a brief outline of this idea I came up with might amuse some of the people here: Ok, in alot of fiction lately its become popular to portray the devil as good, usually because he wants humans to have free will. Now, consider this: What if, secretly, the Devil was God's most loyal subject and, in a move somewhat similar to what Judas did in the Gospel of Judas, was ordered to betray him, wage war on him, and INTENTIONALLY LOSE AND BE DAMNED FOREVER just so that God would look good for winning. Now, imagine if he built his army with the rhetoric we now associate with a "good" version of the Devil: God is a tyrant, humans need free will, etc, but never actually believed any of it himself, but now you actually have legions of people and fallen angels who do, who he's planning to lead them to damnation in the final battle...now, imagine he impregnated a woman to make the anti-Christ, and he taught the anti-Christ the same thing. But, now imagine that the anti-Christ, being part angel, was able to get into heaven, and pretend to betray his father to the other Arch Angels (God not being present at the time), who believed that an anti-Christ turned to their side would be the ultimate weapon against the devil. But, it was all a trick, and he was able to kill all the Arch Angels when their backs were turned, and then open a portal between heaven and hell so that all the damned souls could storm heaven and rip God apart...and then Lucifer walks in. Just, imagine the look on his face.--Mustex (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd totally watch that movie. I Eat Glue (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So why would Lucifer teach his son the wrong thing? And these are some pretty credulous angels to trust the son of the Enemy.--^talk 02:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The alternative: Once your son is old enough to know who he is, tell him "I need you to help me fight a war against God for the purpose of making God look awesome. We're going to intentionally lose because God told us to, but we're still going to be damned for all eternity for it." So, basicaly the same reason he told that to everyone else. Because, otherwise no one would be insane enough to listen, his son included.--Mustex (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy and nutritionists vs. real science

Here's a good one. Enjoy the meal, RationalWiki! AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 04:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I got my Mac back

My defective Mac has been repaired.

It "only" cost me a little over $400. It was the video card that failed, and they only charged me for the replacement card; they didn't charge me labor costs, which would have been another $120 or so. MDB (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That seems damn expensive for a video card, even if it is a laptop video card... --GTac (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's Mac hardware; it's expensive because it's designed to fail the day after the warranty expires. Word stupid Hoover! 13:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey! It was a full six months after the warranty expired! MDB (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's an iMac, not a laptop. I'd say the cost is due to it being designed to fit into the monitor itself, since the the computer and the monitor are one and the same.

Anyway, I was kind of over a barrel. I'm completely non-mechanical and I doubt I could insert a video card into an iMac. MDB (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If you'd bought a Dell, it wouldn't have cost you a penny for parts or labour. If you'd placed your order right, they even send a nice man round to your house to fix it. Let this be a lesson to you. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I spend enough time in Windows at work, thank you very much. But I no longer curse the day Bill Gates was born. I curse the day his parents met. MDB (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

PC =/= Windows. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This is true, but judging by his fascination by OSX, neither Linux, or BSD, or... etc will do the trick. And since it's a pain to get OSX on a Dell, a Mac is probably the way to go. For what it's worth, I'm typing this on my MacBook, and my desktop runs Linux. So I also hate Windows. I have moved all the way to life first forming being the day I dread. as it eventually led to Bill Gates being born. I win. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 12:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Teacher: 1, Palin:0

Sarah is worse than Andy when it comes to facing criticism--Thanatos (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. She really is just plain thick isn't she? ^theist 20:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

My theory is that the Republicans are constantly trying to prove the last Republican considered stupid wasn't really that stupid after all. People thought Ronald Reagan was stupid, so they gave us Dan Quayle. People thought Dan Quayle was stupid, so they gave us George W. Bush. People thought George W. Bush was stupid, so they gave us Sarah Palin. I'm scared to see who they'll come up with to make Saint Sarah of Wasilla look good. MDB (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sharron Angle? Totnesmartin (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Bush actually had redeeming qualities and by most accounts - i.e., not the ones that Michael Moore cherry picked for Fahrenheit 9/11 - a mostly functioning brain. Palin on the other hand appears genuinely challenged. ^theist 20:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It was like she instantly reverted to highschool. Palin should be doused in pigs blood at the prom. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin just seems to love publicity. Her hatred of criticism is what seems to have made her resign her position of Governor of Alaska. Palin just is stupid, I guess. I can't believe people actually want her to win the U.S. Presidency in 2012. She would probably resign after someone criticizes her attire at inaugration, after seeing her pitiful performance as Governor.--Moneyman (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ben Quayle ^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.70 / talk / contribs}

Did anyone see the poll at the bottom of the article? That was scarier than the video, in my opinion. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I f*** hate english language

I'm so sick of this "it is, isn't it" blabbing. Long conversation simply means "it is indeed, is it not". It sucks. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I can't wait for texting-speak to evolve into a proper dialect. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Then learn another one. Тогава ще можеш да дразниш хората на два езика.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ty glupyi durak. (Sorry, don't mean that) --Idiot number 57 (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Доста по- на юг, всъщност. :D --ZooGuard (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A new experience.

Just coming out of wiki-break to rant about this. Just been attacked by a mastiff. Beast knocked me over and then got my right hand. Bit through the nail on one finger and broke the bone below. Also left me needing quite a few stitches in the rest of the hand. Socialist medicine saved it though. Would write long funny story but typing left handed is a real pain.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. At least you're okay, I suppose. Sorry to hear about that, though, Bob. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 22:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This never would have happened if you posses a largely defensive weapon of gun, y'know. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What Goonie said—at least you're okay. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Shit man, lets kill the fucking thing! Hope you're OK. I also had a new experience in that I let a giant Indonesian Fruit Bat link cranberry sauce from my genitals. Ace^X-102 22:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Shit Bob that's scary stuff. Glad to hear you made it out mostly unscathed. On the upside you now have an excuse to eat pills and drink similar to what I've been using for the better part of a decade. Welcome? ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 22:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Pills and an excuse not to do housework and be coddled by loved ones. You sir, are a lucky bastard. Ace^X-102 22:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

When I read "then got my right hand" I grimaced, since I thought you meant he'd gotten it away from you and was gnawing on it. So discovering he just broke a bone and cut it some was actually a relief.--^talk 23:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

But if he had lost his right hand, it would've made a great story. Years from now he could've been telling his grandkids, "Did I ever tell you about the time a dog ran off with my hand?" Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And everyone could make funny jokes like "Do you want a hand, Bob?" and "You gotta hand it to that dog!" also "A show of hand for the latest Loya Jirga decision" and so forth. Ho ho ho. Ace^X-102 02:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

One of those things I guess. Police involved. More visits to doctors today and tomorrow. Could have been worse. No tendons cut. The thing had me on my back on the ground! but after taking an interest in my hand it sort of backed off. Then people were attracted to my (desperate) cries for help.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 05:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty hectic, Bob. Glad your OK and still have ya digits. I got bitten in the head by a dog when I was young and have been wary of them since. Not to mention my experiences with horses. Ace^X-102 05:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the times when being married a nurse is a distinct advantage.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I'd be interested to know if you followed up any of the advice when you had a previous run in with the mastiff (I assume it's the same one). And being married to a nurse does hav its advantages, a friend of mine walked through a glass door at home and sliced off part of his chest as well as severely cutting one wrist, luckily his nurse partner was at home at the time. Lots of nasty scarring but ultimately still alive.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Bob, if you supported school prayer, this would never happened in the first place. Deny this and lose all credibility! ^theist 12:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As suggested above the "largely defensive weapon of gun" might have been the most useful. It's the same mastiff - or rather the same three. The hole had been blocked and I wasn't walking with my dog. But they had another hole and the most vicious one attacked me instead.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nasty. Hope the police are recommending the largely defensive weapon of sodium pentobarbitone. --Robledo (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I remember you writing about those mutts months ago. I'm glad you're alright buddy. A dog once barked at me, so I know exactly how you feel. SJ ^Debaser 17:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well this just keeps getting better. Spend last night and all day today in hospital. Infection from the bite is doing bad things to my hand and arm. Hope to get out soon. And I had a hell of a job getting an internet connection--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC).

For those interested in my winging whinging - not going to be out till Monday earliest. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Be well, Bob. Hope the antibiotics clear it all up and your flapper comes out better for the wear. I'll think of you while I change my brakes this morning. That's tons better than praying, sir. 12:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

iPhone Owners

We iPhone owners aren't just all smug hipsters fascinated with Steve Jobs' latest offering.

We also get laid more often. MDB (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This is of course so unreliable that it means nothing important. Though it is quite entertaining. The only proven association between technology and sex is that Linux users have it far less often. Word stupid Hoover! 17:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No you don't. People who have their photos taken with iPhones report they have had more sexual partners. My personal theory is that, like the phones, the people look shiny but once you get to know them you can't keep 'em. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd imagine that there's fairly strong inverse correlation between iPhone owners and age (younger → more iPhones) while those with the brains to spot a con (i.e. older) will go for the (cheaper) Androids. Thus it's probably that the younger you are, the more likely you are to splash^[sic] your sex on the web. 18:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You all are just jealous because it has been scientifically proven that I'm getting more nookie than you. MDB (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I do know a guy who managed to pull every time (he was a Russel Brand-a-like who took fifteen minutes to squeeze into his skin-tight jeans every morning, incidentally) but one of his techniques was to pull out his iPhone, wait for the girl he was talking to to exclaim "wow an iPhone!!" (I should clarify that this was when they first came out) and then he'd scoff a little, put it back in his pocket and say "oh, yeah, I've just had it a few weeks...". Apparently this kind of blasé arrogance gets you a fuck-ton of pussy. Who knew? ^theist 20:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

*ahem* Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

ANy of you ever read "Eragon"

And Elder and Brisingr?

I think we can all agree that Eragon is really badly written book. But the story itself is... well, compelling, so I've read Eragon three times actually. --Idiot number 58 (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I read Eragon, and you're right, it was an interesting story. Eldest... not so much. I didn't even read Brisingr. Eldest was one of the few books I "gave up" on in the middle of reading it. Chthonios (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I always thought that Eldest is more interesting book, but the beginning was indeed boring. The end of the book was very exciting, however. --Idiot number 58 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Overall, I thought the series was so-so - for the most part it stuck to the traditional "young-adult fantasy" formula, but it was still enjoyable enough that it held my interest. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Never read the book, but saw the movie (weren't they going to film the sequels? What happened? Not that I care). I liked it better the first time I saw it, when it was called "Star Wars". DickTurpis (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The first and second books are, plot-wise, literally exactly the same as the first two Star Wars films (A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back), just transferred to a standard fantasy universe. That's why it's so compelling even though the writing is frankly terrible - it's a good story, and one any self-respecting geek will have seen millions of times. I Eat Glue (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A fun new game

http://www.scapequote.com/ Try and guess the actual Tea Party-related quote! I keep choosing the most reasonably crazy, only to be stunned that the most batshit one was right. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The non-fun part: after several guesses, it shows a page asking for donations.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. But it's kind of forgivable; look at what they're up against. At least you can go back to the game with one click. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there a clip somewhere (UTube?) of people trying to guess if certain phrases belonged to super heroes, or George W? --PsyGremlinRunāt! 10:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Reich or Wrong questionnaire

"It's time to play the game "Reich or Wrong?" To win, you have to match an historic quotation with the paragon of Christian virtue who said or wrote it! Was it Pat Robertson -- or Hitler? Maybe it was the guy who started Protestantism!" [1]

There's gold in them there idiots

Remember a few months back when those Chinese guys who happen to own a Noah's Ark theme park announced they'd actually found the real ark? Well, here's some of the fallout I missed at the time. The thing that struck me is the vast sums of money being thrown around willy nilly for this epically stupid endeavour. 17K euros for some fucking photos? Really? It's crazy. Clearly, these Turks have lucked in on a goldmine of stupid. Every time I consider the vast sums of money available to the dishonest in the Jesus racket, I get one step closer to throwing my ethics out the window. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, as Pope Leo X said, "It has served us well, this myth of Christ". (ok, slight tangent, but same thing at the end of the day.) --PsyGremlinParla! 15:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

O wonder what the theme park attendances were like before , during and now after the 'discovery' after all, the same group 'discovered' it twice at least 10 years apart. Jeeves should be able to do as well as Hovind , but would need a suitable PhD paper. I will give a start " Hi I am Jeeves, I like picnics on the beach, I live in a nice house with a small lawn and my personal savior Jesus. " Hamster (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll have you know I already have a Ph.D. in truthology from Christian Tech. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Futurama

Thursday night's Futurama will focus on the evolution/creation battle.

Check out which noted deity appears at the end of the clip. MDB (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! I was pleasantly surprised when Futurama came back, and I'm glad it is actually going to take on issues this time. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

They've already done a Proposition Eight episode, about Robosexual marriage. (It was, needless to say, an analogy...) MDB (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I do remember seeing a commercial for that one recently, but apparently I missed the episode. Ah well. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

MDB, did you watch it? If not you should definitely try to find it online, it was one of the better episodes in a while. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I watched it, yes. It was amusing. MDB (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

My favorite part was the discussion of missing links: "There's no link between a human and a monkey!" "Yes there is, it's called homo erectus!" "Well, there's no link beween homo erectus and a monkey!" Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Fucking classic. "You've just proved my case, for there is no link between Apes and this 'darwinius masillae'" "Ok, granted, that one link is still missing, but just because we haven't found it, doesn't me it doesn't exist!" "Pashaw! Things don't exist simply because you believe in them! Thus sayeth the all-mighty creature in the sky!" Fell over laughing. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 17:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Friday the 13th

Just sayin'.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to hairdresser's. Hope she'll be sober. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Took my car in for a service. R11 000 later... *sigh* --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 10:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a rockin' good Thursday the 12th. I'm hoping Friday the 13th doesn't balance the scales. MDB (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Never been a problem for me. It's all superstitious cobblers. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's still fun to talk about though. MDB (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

True, I was just joking on fb about it with Mr Gremlin. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, Monday is far more significant -- it's Elvis Death Day! MDB (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Only for those suckers who believe the King is dead. On the subject, Friday the 13th doesn't bug me, but ladders and spilled salt do, thanks to my Grandma. --PsyGremlinTala! 12:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never spilled salt on a ladder so I should be safe - touch wood. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No, no no... you're supposed to knock on wood and run away from it. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You are supposed to knock wooden ladders? Sen (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No, no no. You're supposed to thank your lucky ladders, throw a star over your shoulder and never walk under salt. hey, is it me, or does that sound that a good founding principle for a cult? --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Pfffffft. I'm a typical Scorpio and thus very cynical of all this superstitious nonsense. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been just another day for me. If I were to get my head stuck in the banisters a third time, then I'd count it as unlucky. SJ ^Debaser 17:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a lucky one for me. My seat for the Air Force Contracting Course was confirmed! If anyone reading this is in the San Antonio, TX area, I'll be by to visit in the February - April time frame. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

CAPTCHArt

It seems the latest "no-skill art" fad sweeping the internet is this little number The art my be terrible but I have been laughing by lungs out for the past half an hour :D ^{ONE / TALK} 20:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm bored of it now. ^{ONE / TALK} 20:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

In the great tradition of internet memes, I don't get it. Vulpius (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how many weeks this strange little meme will last. --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 21:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I quite like it. I've often been concerned, scared and amused by CAPTCHA. I think the one I got when I signed up to Facebook was something like "privacy violated" - I shit you not. ^theist 10:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

CP on TYT

Nothing we haven't seen before. Just mentioning the mention. Must have been a slow day--Thanatos (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I love how Conservapedia's view and actions are so stupid to the point that all one has to do in order to show how stupid Conservapedia really is and can be is to simply list their views and logic. That's it. No arguing required, and Uygur basically showed that. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see Uygur fail to keep a straight face when discussing a story like this, he's been a lot more angry recently so it appears that the far right shit he has to report hasn't completely destroyed his soul. ^theist 11:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Retarded teabaggers: Take 2

Remember that teabagger site I linked to above? They got all riled up when Glenn Beck said on his show that there are moderate muslims, which contrasts with their belief that all muslims are out to get them. So the teabagger-in-chief of that site created this petition. Here on the site. Even Glenn Beck is too moderate for these guys. EddyP (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Adminship without blocking powah

Is it possible to demote somebody to adminship here, but prevent them from using the ability to block and unblock people? More specifically, I would simply love to see TK demoted to an admin here, but restrain the ability for him to block and unblock people, as we wouldn't want him to unblock himself. Why do I want this? Mr. Terry keeps on reverting edits on Wikipedia and blocking people on Conservapedia for being admins at a vicious and horrendous vandal site, as reported by the press. It wouldn't make a hell of a difference in what TK does if he's an admin here, but it would make me satisfied in my own little world. ~SuperHamster Talk 16:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It is possible, I suppose. I once (as a joke) suggested we create a "senior administrators" usergroup that had no rights at all, just the name. Unfortunately, nobody thought it was funny because "why the fuck would you want to make TK a senior administrator here?" Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 16:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

However, you forget one thing. TK is a hypocritical cunt and the rules don't apply to him; especially the rules he makes up. The fact that him and Rob openly posted to a site they see as a vandal site, was a clear indication that rules are there for them to cock a snoot to. I think the fact that TK has earned himself a blacklisting on WP speaks volumes and if he tries his trouble again over there, any and all editors should be pointed towards that conversation. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 16:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Psy makes a good point. But I still think we should create a "senior administrators" usergroup here that has no rights, because making TK a token "senior administrator" here (with no special rights at all) would be funny as hell, considering he's blocked. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 16:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know he wouldn't give a damn (unfortunately). That's why I said that "It wouldn't make a hell of a difference in what TK does if he's an admin here." It'd just be for the lulz. I'm liking the idea, though, Goonie. "Oh yea, TK? We may be admins...but you're a senior admin." ~SuperHamster Talk 16:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It would fly in his face for when he claims to be a senior admin at CONservapedia, because he'd also be a senior admin here. It's just that our title here would be nothing more than a title; no powers attached. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 16:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

+1. Make it so. - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever Gerard says because he's god's gift to wiki's and has such good judgment. 17:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Go, go, gadget testicles demotion.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 19:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

yeah, let's create a whole new level of users for the sole purpose of trolling one person. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Consistent with WP's best practices that I'm only now just discovering I'd advocate simply unblocking TK if he would withdraw and repudiate his legal threat to Trent and private threat to me to have be disbarred from practicing law. If he's not going to participate in RW in good faith I wonder why we'd bother with a whole community discussion about something that was proposed as a joke in the first place. 19:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It baffles me that this conversation is even happening, let alone anyone willingly engaging him in conversation. --Kels (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? Sounds amusing to me. Tiatton of (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got a serial killer!

Or maybe he buggered off. Not sure. Still, pretty cool. Local Coverage And by pretty cool, I mean, because I'm not black.. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 17:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh.. I lied. It's no longer considered a racially motivated serial "slasher". More victims = 2 white guys added. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 10:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And busted. In Atlanta, trying to fly to Israel. What a pussy. Only stabbed 21, killed 5. No raping/eating of corpses, either.. How can we make a movie out of that? Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 13:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hah! His mother says he's a "Good, god-fearing" man. Of course he is. And they're once again saying it may have been racial.. At least in the national news I'm watching right now. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 12:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem quite convinced there is only one. I watched an interesting documentary on how a police department got credit for solving a great many crimes, by showing a "serial killer" pictures of various crime scenes and asking if he remembers doing this. He knew all kinds of things about these murders. How could this be? All the while he got all he wanted in his "cell".

Would this composite drawing help you identify this guy? These don't even show the skin or hair color and these are some of the easiest features to reproduce. ~ Lumenos 22:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wheeee

I iz now running under Windows 7. Now to spend the next 12 hours reinstalling all the programs that were working perfectly fine 4 hours ago.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It takes you twelve hours? It doesn't even take me three. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, all the fun of upgrading from 32-bit XP to 64-bit 7, plus the interesting discovery that installing my keyboard drivers completely froze my keyboard. Then, of course, there's the small matter of re-installing 0.75TB of varying games, dll heaven really.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Saying nothing Linux 23:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Because we all know that Linux never has driver issues, right?</sarcasm> And it appears you missed the part where he said "games", something Linux pratically useless for. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Since running Ubuntu the only driver issues I've had have been with a twenty year old scanner and a brand new printer, both of which were solved in under 1/2 an hour. If people wanna play games (the desire has never come m way) I have every sympathy with their condition, much as I have with someone suffering from alzheimers. ^{— Unsigned, by: SusanG / talk / contribs 23:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC}

Games stave off the boredom. Basically stuck in the flat 24/7 so I need to find a way to keep myself amused.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

With linux, you won't even have to play your large collection of games, so you won't have to transfer them, and that means less work! And solving driver issues is easy, all you have to do is follow a 238 step process that was written in Mongolian. Its so simple! --173.188.48.25 (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Did I fall into a portal to 1999? Desktop Linux is ridiculously easy anymore, and wine has made such strides, that I never even use Windows anymore, including for games... As for drivers, I find modern Linux easier than windows to deal with. YMMV, I suppose... But damn. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 00:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Shorter SusanG and Quaru: "Works for me". Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Which no one ever, ever says about Windows. On that note, I'm about to start working on a friends laptop in which Windows blew a wire, and will no longer wake from sleep, and spews garbage to the LCD after about 5 minutes... Glad it's just her. Well, at least she can play games, at least for a minute or two. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 00:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That is clearly a hardware problem that would happen if linux were installed. ^{— Unsigned, by: 173.188.48.25 / talk / contribs 00:36, 13 August 2010}

Yeah? The linux boot disc in it right now says otherwise. Been up for an hour, to make sure it's not hardware. sleep and wakes just fine, oddly. Oh. I mean. You're right. Windows never breaks. I'll let her know. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 00:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeebus. I mention installing Windows 7 and the next thing I know the Windows-Linux TekWars have broken out.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Right? When will people learn that all OS's suck. The best any one of us can hope for is "it works for me". Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 00:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is correct. However, Microsoft Windows is used by more then 90% of personal computer users, which means that Windows works for most people. Since Windows works for far more people then linux or osk, then that basically proves that Windows is a better OS. ^{— Unsigned, by: 173.188.48.25 / talk / contribs 01:06, 13 August 20105}

Sure about that? In my experience, it means 90% of people don't care what their OS is, and use whatever comes on it.. And that 90% of users bitch about their computer, not knowing there's even other options.. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 01:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What the heck? I spend a half hour writing my rant, only to find that everyone's all hunky-dory now? Crap. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Anon user, that's definitely not the best way to look at things, for a number of reasons. Most people using Windows doesn't prove that it's the better browser, as people may be getting it for other reasons that are unrelated to how good it is. Windows is widely available and popular, so that automatically sets a stance for how many people will buy it. It's an easy buy and it's everywhere. There's also the fact that basically almost all software is compatible with Windows, in comparison to, say, a Mac or a Linux, which is also why people turn to it. It's not because they want to, it's because they have to if they want to have the largest library of software to chose from. That's why I'm using Windows right now and not Linux, which I love but don't use. While it is true that you can use programs to make other programs work with your OS, it's a hassle, especially for the not-so-techy bunch of people (which is a lot of people). In addition, Windows is often cheaper than getting, for example, an Apple computer. Why spend hundreds of dollars more when you can get a slightly worse computer that does basically the same thing, just in a not-as-efficient and convenient manner? In another addition, you have to be at least a little bit tech savvy to be aware of and install Linux, and, well, not many people are, as I previously stated. In yet another addition, just because something "works" doesn't mean it's the best. I could make $45,000 a year and get by, or I can make $1,000,000 and also get by, but I'd be doing it much more prestigiously in the latter example. Yet, the latter is still the less popular out of the two, even though it's the best. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I really don't get in the OS arguments. I hate computers in general. Go figure. I just hate the same tired old arguments, as if they are somehow specific to Linux. They may be worse on Linux, but they exist everywhere. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 01:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right: Windows does suck. Gigantic donkey balls. It's user interface is inconsistent (the new Aero theme is nice but only skin-deep; the deeper you dig into the system options, the more the UI regresses to Windows 95-standards). Programs are allowed to do whatever they want with your system once you hit "install", and to make things worse, uninstalling the program still leaves behind unacceptable amounts of detritus from the program. The Windows Registry is opaque and unusable to the layperson. It was plagued for a long time by major security issues (older versions had no firewall and left all ports open by default) and still is (it still has holes in it's memory protection (whatever the term for it is, can't be bothered to look it up)). Also, pre-Vista, the graphics drivers sucked—hence the notorious blurring windows effect. If I took the time, I would be able to find even more problems.

And despite all of that, it's still a better desktop OS than Linux (servers and firmware are another matter entirely).

By the way—these are actual, specific problems, and not "Windows fried my friend's computer". Windows is on 85%+ of desktop computers right now—that's many, many, many millions of PCs. Shit is bound to happen. But for the most part, it's good enough—it kind of has to be, for Microsoft to succeed in the long term (which it has been). If Windows is as cripplingly bad as you believe it is, then way, way fewer people would use it. (Recall if you will the last genuinely shitty Microsoft OS, Windows ME, which was critically panned and generally unpopular.)

Compare this to say, desktop Linux, which, at its best, is a less stable, slightly uglier version of OS X with less software support, made worse by the albatross that is the notoriously fanatical, abrasive, and toxic GNU/Linux community. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Now, I challenge you to name at least a half-dozen specific problems that desktop Linux has. You aren't a true nerd if you can't critique the hell out of the things you love. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Much more complex issue... There are multiple desktops, making it a bit easier, and also less relevant.. And it may be your hobby. It's my career.

• Inconsistent interface, at best. At worst, designed by geeks with the assumption that no mortal being will operate it, thus leading to confusing options, menu items, and general "flow" problems.
• Non-standard package formats. I last knew of .. 3? rpm tgz and deb.. Each have strengths, but to a non-techie, it's just a confusing mess.
• Love of command line. This is by necessity, and most geeks would never give it up. But the reliance on it for simple user tasks is just pathetic.
• Monolithic Kernel. Really? What is this? 1990? Even the first NT got away from this..
• Non standard libc. Last I knew, there were still problems with certain distros with this.

Sorry.. I'm running out. I mostly use OSX now. (my desktop is still not unpacked from my last 2! moves)

OSX:

• No uninstall... This is at least as bad as Windows in practice.
• Buggy networking. Actually makes windows networking look good. Which is just frightening. (I mean the local sharing shit, actual network stack is quite good)
• inconsistent interface. Mostly to do with 3rd party. Can be quite jarring from within the "clean" 1st party world.
• Fucking menu bar. Really. Fuck that thing.

Sorry, still running out. Been a long day. I do have more for both, just can't think of them off the top of my head. the "my friends computer" remark was just a light hearted argument against the claims of "it works for me" since it's the exact same fucking argument that everyone makes for their own shit. As example, it was immediately dismissed as a hardware issue. Since windows doesn't do that, apparently. And yet, both of those are still what I use. As it's still a much less frustrating experience than using Windows for more than 30 mins. I also love that I can alter the UI to such an extent to make it better for my workflow. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 01:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Quaru! I kneel before your superior experience with computers. And sorry for picking a fight like that—I was in a mood to test the knowledge I'd gleaned so far. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, you flatter me. If anything, that exchange has taught me how shallow my complaints have become. I blame extra education. I ended up specializing in UI design, and it's now all I focus on. Argh! Ah well, such is life, I guess.. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 12:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is usually just that there is no equivalent software or hardware. The best speech recognition software runs naively on Windoze. DNS can be used with Wine but not for anything but dictation. No NetZero for super cheap computers (for those who have a land-line phone which is less common these days). I don't think Netflix streaming video (uses MS Silverlight) works with Linux yet.

Another thing that kinda sucks is that a standard Ubuntu/Kubuntu install does so much updating. It seems to be a major convenience or security advantage, to update most of your software through an integrated package management system (except when updates introduce new security holes), but when you don't use the vast majority of the software, it bogs everything down unless you spend hours uninstalling the software you don't use (or you have a better solution?). ~ Lumenos 23:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

And, in other religious war-related news

I would like to announce that C and all of its variants all suck, and that the best language ever is Lisp. Word stupid Hoover! 09:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Emacs lisp? --85.76.21.201 (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not Emacs Lisp, but that's because it's a holdover from a long departed era; modern Lisps like Scheme and Common Lisp are much nicer. Word stupid Hoover! 09:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the dark ages, guys. There's no need to accept such Lisps when you can get therapy for them : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not mock the Lisp, for you have not seen the glory of the homoiconity or revelled in the joy of automatic memory management. Word stupid Hoover! 11:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OS_Wars - says it all. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Perl. That is all. MDB (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Perl? I mean, it's a nice esolang, what with the syntax that can't be parsed without a universal Turing machine and all, but I can't imagine using it for anything practical. Word stupid Hoover! 11:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

From personal experience, Lisp-based languages are fun. I've used Scheme extensively, and it has it' uses. I'm still, however, a fan of C-based languages.. Sorry. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 12:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean you enjoy explicitly allocating and deallocating memory, while hunting down segfaults and memory leaks? Word stupid Hoover! 12:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: Yes. Long Answer: It's been so long since I've had to hunt down a segfault, or a memory leak. And both are easy, once you get really good at it. And manual memory management is the reason I stick with C++, you can do so many fun things with it! I feel downright crippled when I use (say) Java, with it's insistence on taking that power from me. Quaru^{bistro - You can't explain that!} 12:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

C and it's variants suck? Then stop using your computer. Lisp is fun, but it ain't all that. Java sucks, but I use it because I'm lazy. Perl is fun, but I don't like getting into OO perl. I still need to give python a proper try, but just the concept of significant whitespace angers and confuses me. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

C does not suck badly for systems programming. However, it does suck for almost all of the other things it's used for, yet few realise this, and it continues to be used for general purpose programming. Word stupid Hoover! 19:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Significant whitespace - isn't it make that distinguishes between four spaces and a tab? Now there's a language that rocks. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, which lisp implementation are you using? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently, SBCL for Common Lisp and PLT Scheme's R5RS compatibility mode for Scheme. Word stupid Hoover! 19:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Perl positively rocks if you're doing text processing, and I've been doing a lot of that lately, to analyze some very hairy log files I've been dealing with for two months. It helps if you're good with regular expressions, and, not to brag, not only am I good with regular expressions, I'm damn good with regular expressions. MDB (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Obligatory XKCD link Jack Hughes (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that cartoon completely. It makes me feel like a cab driver who has long dreamed of hearing someone say "follow that car!" MDB (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

bah...just do it with bash and sed! is what some geek somewhere is saying... Occasionaluse (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Pah, all those high-level languages lack machismo, real men use assembly language. Load that in to your accumulator, transfer it to your pipe and smoke it. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I bet you eat quiche too --85.76.123.175 (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Fuels

You may have heard that it's possible to power engines with vegetable oil.

People act like that's a new development, but it's not. Fifty years ago, people were powering engines with spices.

Don't believe me? Haven't you heard that Mussolini made the trains run on thyme? MDB (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That joke was Italy's entry for the 1985 eurovision joke contest. It came last. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's like a fine wine, then. It gets better with age. MDB (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hold it! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There go those two drums and accompanying cymbal, flying off the cliff and heading for oblivion... (!Pedant alert! - Thyme is a herb, not a spice) ^theist 18:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to interrupt these non-groaner jokes (<.<)(>.>)with history but vegetable and peanut oils were used in early diesel engines in case you didn't know.Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 20:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Rudolph Diesel's first engines did indeed run on vegetable oils; and the petroleum fuel we now know as 'Diesel' (or more correctly, in the UK at least, DERV fuel) was once considered a waste product of the distillation of crude oil to produce petrol, then the oil companies caught on to Rudolph's compression ignition engine. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(pedant alert) Actually, DERV stands for Diesel Engined Road Vehicle. It colloquially means white diesel, the undyed fuel for them, as opposed to red diesel, which is dyed red and used on non-road vehicles and has less tax. However, white and red diesel are otherwise the same. 62.56.63.129 (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm, yes. That's why I said "DERV fuel", as in "Fuel for a Diesel Engined Road Vehicle". DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You can still use vegetable oil (Straight Vegetable Oil, or SVO, or Waste Vegetable Oil, WVO, providing it's been cleaned and dehydrated) on some modern diesel engines. I think it's only certain Mercedes engines that will do it, though, as it will quickly destroy any other kind, and you do need to pre-warm or mix it with diesel it to thin it out a little first. It's a nice alternative to biodiesel if you can't be arsed with the transesterifcation reaction. ^theist 10:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No no NO NO NO! You can absolutely NOT use straight vegetable oil in ANY modern Diesel engines! Nothing made in the last 10 years will run it. Modern Common-rail Direct Injection engines will die in minutes if you are so stupid to try it. The only engines that WILL run SVO are InDirect Injection types with suitable injection pumps; the best of these are the PAS XUD9 (only if it has a Bosch IP) and the OLD Mercedes lumps (OM616/7 and OM601/2/3/5/6 series), and the last of these were replaced by the CDI engines in the late nineties. Sorry to have a go at you Armond, but there's SO much misinformation online and in pubs - "yeah mate, it'll be fine, just mix it with a bit of Diesel / It'll be fine in Mercs and red Fords..." etc. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Evil, liberal Londoners raise £1'000'000 for dispossessed

Remember how us English are all evil, liberal atheists? Well £1m was raised in London alone over 18 days to help the poorest people in the City. Of course I'm sure that if we weren't evil, liberal atheists, and instead good, conservative Christians, we would've raised twice the money in half the time. SJ ^Debaser 17:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but it is because we are evil, liberal, atheists that we raised £1 000 000. Its all part of a fiendish plot to ensure that the poor stay poor by forcing them to rely on handouts, whereas true, rightous, conservative fundamentalists (or condemnalists^TM) give the poor diginity and hope by offering them jobs as escorts and rent-boys.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The population of London is 7 million. As such, the average donation per Londoner per day was slightly under one penny. Standard liberal uncharitablility. Word stupid Hoover! 23:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Foolish Londoners. Poor people will blow the money on booze and lottery tickets. Jesus would buy some tuna baguettes from Pret A Manger and then multiply them in order to feed the hungry masses. JC knew that drug dealers and lottery ticket outlets would be unlikely to accept tuna baguettes as currency. I'll be laughing while you all burn in Hell. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 12:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Essay

To supplement my political science degree I am doing a paper on Religion and Modern Society. Today I am engaging myself in this by writing 2000 words on Protestant fundamentalism in the US. Of course, the issue I'll tackle is evolution vs. bullshit creationism. I'll be using the Lenski affair as an example of wrong-headed creationist crap and I am very pleased to be able to reference CP (albiet via Dawkins Greatest Show on Earth) as an example of the movement. Also, I have been spying on my neighbours and I think they have bought a new bed but I can't really tell from here so I might need new binoculors; and I am very hungover. Ace^X-102 22:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I know RW has influenced me a great deal, but that's an amazing example of applying RW-related info to the real world. Bravo, Ace! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah not sure if I'll reference RW though but Schlafly will get a mention. Ace^X-102 00:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Might also want to mention the Discovery Institute and Expelled, since they (along with the whole idea of ID) highlight how complex the issue appears to the uninformed. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the gayest degrees I've ever heard of. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Errrr, nice one fuckface. My degree is in Political Science and this is a single paper from a Degree in Religious Studies. Ace^X-102 01:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahahahaha, have fun getting a job! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a job. In fact - I have two jobs. Ace^X-102 01:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Being kickass isn't a job! --Kels (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If it were a job I'd have three jobs. Ace^X-102 02:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The hand- varieties don't count either, fuckface. (though they probably should.) DickTurpis (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Any news on the neighbour's bed? Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 12:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A new cover article!

Unless there's serious objection, I'm going to put a gold brain on baraminology some time in the next thirty seconds to a few hours or whatever. Then perhaps the cover article process will be something anyone will bother with - David Gerard (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's done. Those fools! Those damned fools! - David Gerard (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You go, girl. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Now on a wild content improvement jag. OTHERS WELCOME - David Gerard (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

WTF are you doing breaking my Wiki!! ^theist 08:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell! -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 08:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

lul wut?

http://www.eutimes.net/2008/04/porn-used-by-zionists-to-destroy-christian-morals/

Do I need say any more? User:Smith 20:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That's David Duke for ya. That "article" might as well be neo-nazi propaganda. --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 20:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Nazis? In my European Union Times? - David Gerard (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That's one hot Zionist. I'd totally destroy Christian morals if she wanted me to. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur. I was wondering if the model was a real kike or if they had to sacrifice the lily white reputation of an Aryan, in order to grab our eyes for this important message. It is a tough call. I detect an epicanthic fold which I've seen in Scandinavian specimens, or it could be a sign of racial mixing. ~ Lumenos 21:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please. I destroy Christian morals for free, you externally-motivated dirtbag. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Beh. It is true, they derive no enjoyment from watching their daughters being painfully ass-raped by black beasts, but they must sell this at bargain basement prices so they can afford moar genuine Nazi gay porn. This is a well known tactic of the Hebrew media agenda, to deny our clear superiority. ~ Lumenos 21:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)