RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive72

This is an archive page, last updated 28 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>, <71>, <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>

, (new)(back)

Fucking bricks!

Homeopathic preparations of the Berlin Wall break down barriers. (You can guess what font the page header uses.) - David Gerard (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Reprinted with permission from the onion? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I do think that with this one, they've outdone homeopathic plutonium and homeopathic antimatter - David Gerard (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I though the section title read Fucking Brits!. My bad. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That's impressive. And I thought Michell and Webb were taking the piss when they tried to dilute some blue Ford Mondeo as a cure for car crash injuries. ^gnostic 08:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Then there's these: [1][2] treat autism with homeopathic placenta! Do we have a page yet of really remarkable real homeopathic treatments? - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

All I wanna know is will homeopathic colloidal silver make me not look like a goddam Papa Smurf? Secret Squirrel (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotta love the BBC

Their report on Family Obama holidaying near the Gulf of Mexico in an attempt to boost tourism to the area and went on a boat trip to see the porpoises: "…proof that not all the local wildlife is covered in oil." Nicely put.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

RSS extension

Moved to RationalWiki:Technical support --PsyGremlinSprich! 18:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Saving Printscreens as picture files

Help! EddyP (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem exactly? On Windows, PrtSc copies the current contents to the clipboard. You can open any picture editor, even Paint, select Edit->Paste, and save the resulting file. IrfanView has some features to make the process easier and its freeware.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to make an article about a highly xenophbic TP group, and I'd like to add in some screenies because links can be unreliable. I tried pasting the screens into paint but the text became hard to read. EddyP (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You can get Capturebot to do the hard work for you, if you like: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Capturebot2/sandbox ^gnostic 12:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I hesitate to use it so, but why not. Thanks! EddyP (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Or atl/fn printscreen. That only captures the desktop, so text might be hidden. Shouldn't reduce resolution tho, if you paste into a graphics prog. --PsyGremlinParlez! 14:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason for the unreadable text is because Paint saves things in JPG with high compression, I guess. Try saving in PNG, most graphic programs that support it allow you to set the level of compression. (Of course, there's also the option of saving huge bitmap files...) --ZooGuard (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I use a utility mwsnap from http://www.mirekw.com/winfreeware/mwsnap.html among other places. It allows you to specify the file type to save and I think size. It will do the full desktop, or any window. there are hotkeys to make capture quicker. Very handy for tutorials. Hamster (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the handy "screengrab" add-on for Firefox. Does a good job too. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 16:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Spare me your firefox propaganda! EddyP (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to namedrop my favorite freeware for taking screenshots: PrtScr. It's simple, elegant and does all I want. I especially enjoy the feature of quickly drawing some boxes and lines on the image using the right mouse button before you save it to clipboard or file. --GTac (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Maxthon2 browser also has a screen capture facility built in similar to Firefox add-ons. MS Paint defaults to saving in bitmap although gif/jpeg/tiff/png are available with XP onwards. If you can read what you see on the screen then Alt-PrtScrn (just the active window rather than the complete desktop) pasted into Paint should have no issues. However, if you then scale the image on a web-page there are no guarantees about legibility. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Mineral Miracle Solution", aka drinking bleach

This one is turning out to be a rather large story: a particularly loathsome bit of quackery, in which people with the desperation alt-med charlatans live on were fed something that turns into fucking industrial bleach when prepared per directions. It's exploded in the past few days. Anyone with some spare time and a loathing for dangerous quacks feel like starting Mineral Miracle Solution? - David Gerard (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm. Everyone knows that I like to cure strep throat with a nice healthy dose of bleach. I could do some research and get an article going tomorrow, lest someone get there before me. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 21:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. A 28% sodium chlorite solution in water, sold as a "water purification product". This site and this site are filled with FDA warnings about taking it internally. This site described on Google as " A New Antibacterial Agent for Internal Use..MMS destroys viruses, bacteria, and toxins when used internally" appears to have been taken down all of a sudden. It almost looks like it was marketed for internal use and the quacks selling it are now backpedaling furiously and selling it for water purification "only" (wink wink). Which reminds me, we don't yet have an article on grapefruit seed extract either. ("Grapefruit seed extract" that purifies water only because its active ingredient, not listed on the label, is triclosan.) Secret Squirrel (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Top o' the Google:

“”Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) is an indiscriminate oxidizer of all known pathogens; Candida, herpes, bacteria, fungus, parasites as well as swine flu whilst strengthening the immune system. Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) acts as a water purificatiom system and we are 70% water. 10,000 bottles sold every month in the USA

—retailer

22:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I bet that's not the only thing it indiscriminately oxidizes. :( Secret Squirrel (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

More proof that belief is homeopathy is naturally selected against? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Just Google it & hit "News" : [3] 22:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

ANd, as is typical, the woo defenders are on the march in support of it. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 22:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A supporter claimed "It kills all the bad stuff in your body and leaves the good stuff..." Wut? Since when did chlorine dioxide kill bad stuff while leaving the "friendly bacteria" alone? Blimey, this is taking batshit crazy to a level where one wonders how long it'll be before people march in support of decapitation as safe and effective method of reducing blood pressure. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 09:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we can file that one under "you fail science forever". Though it has to be a serious bit of ignorance for people to accept that sort of thing. People should know what bleach contains and what it does. And people should know that if you want something strong enough to kill all bacteria and viruses, you'd have to be wearing a pretty beefy hazmat suit while you use it. Anyway, this distinction between "good" and "bad" bacteria is merely an invention of marketing firms for yogurts; it's not like you have factions of bacteria, one waving a blue flag and another waving a red flag (analogies for protein receptors not withstanding) but it's all about balance and symbiotic relationships. Get too much "good" bacteria and it'll probably do you no good. But the point is, people should realise that there is no real difference, and it's certainly not a simple difference at that, so there's no magic bullet for destroying bad bacteria and leaving good ones. ^gnostic 11:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The old "we are 70% water" argument. . (There should be a handy template for that.) Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Even worse. HIV denialism from the inventor of MMS. http://www.mmsanswers.com/?p=648 "Stop the drugs immediately. HIV is not dangerous. It does not cause AIDS...The vomiting was a good sign. It means you body is getting rid of bad stuff...Just depend on the MMS as it is a thousand times better." Secret Squirrel (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The latest edition of the podcast The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (episode 265) has some commentary on this. Incidentally, the 70% water thing is silly, but understandable given that we only use 10% of our brains. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 12:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Sodium chlorite for fuck's sake. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We should have a page on Water woo. Don't forget the Quantum Stirwands.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fenestra Research

Taking another look at the Quantum Stirwands site I noticed that they have clinical trials performed by Fenestra Research which "specializes in the provision of low-cost, publishable empirical data and product recommendations using proprietary technology. Its current market niche is the wellness supplementation industry". Although it claims to be "The world leader in clinical trials" a Google on the name brings up loads of woo-related links. Seems to be right up our street.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 23:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

FA Cup

Just saying that this year's tourney kicked off on Saturday. I really like these early rounds (and non-league footie in general). There's something special about seeing Eton Manor 3-0 Bedford, attendance: 12. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 11:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I hear you brother. You know you're at a real game when someone in the crowd shouts at the linesman and the linesman tells him to 'fuck off'! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a real game when you can sing "Who ate all the pies" to someone in another stand - and they actually hear it. Ah, fond memories. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 12:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol! Plus where else would you find fixtures like Crook Town vs West Midland Police (FA Vase 3rd round, 12/1999). Oh, the Crooks won 3-1. --PsyGremlinParla! 12:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As much as I don't like football, I have to admire the spirit of the FA Cup. Yes, it's clear that one of the big Premiership teams is going to win it, but it's just great when you get luck conspiring to put the likes of Bedlington Terriers in the proper competition. ^gnostic 14:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should mention Bedlington, they're one of the teams I always look out for, such an awesome team methinks. Sadly, lost in the first pre-qualifying round this year :( --PsyGremlinSprich! 16:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume you aren't tired of my pottery yet

Let's be honest, 90 % or content here is bloody boring. I'd like to write more poems, so I need some help. I've not been around here for very long time, so I assume I don't know many scandalous, stupid, trolling, arrogant or otherwise interesting users who deserve a poem. Order a poem about your mortal enemy # 1 and you won't be disappointed. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like one about Idiot number 58 - I hate that fucker! - π 13:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't. He's like... brother to me.--Idiot number 57 (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I also hate Anonymous user. - π 13:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's even worse. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that Anonymous user is a right arsehole. ^gnostic 13:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, just because I can't find a rhyme for "armondikov" doesn't mean you're in the safe zone. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Kalashnikov", but that's probably taking a turn for the worse. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, I'm not Russian, nor does the name come from anything remotely Russian. Someone once thought it was the name of an obscure Russian philosopher, but alas, no. ^gnostic 14:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A cursory googling reveals..... do- do you have an account at KlingonAcademy.com? ^{ONE / TALK} 15:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, shoving the username into Google revealed my first piece of art theft [4] I feel validated at last! ^gnostic 16:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus gave me herpes!

It just occurred to me today. I've been a sufferer of cold sores since I was a kid way too young to realise that kissing girls wasn't icky. I always kind of wondered how I ended up with the virus, but now I realise the most probably explanation is that I got it during communion when I was a tiddler.

So, that mother fucker Jesus not only had me cannibalising him for years until I was old enough to say no, but I also got a fabulous incurable disease from him. Bastard. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I too have had coldsores since I was yay high and always assumed it was some irritating slobbering overenthusiastic aunt giving me a "ooh haven't you grown" kiss. I subsequently found out that I'm the only member of my family who suffers from coldsores. So fuck knows. Immaculate infection? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Or someone is lying? ħuman 02:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For song nerds

Guess the song (I've only got 2)20:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I know what 1 and 2 are, and I can sing bits of 11, but that's it. Evil cubic Hoover! 21:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It was 2 & 11 I got. 21:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

1 is Werewolves of London, by Warren Zevon. Evil cubic Hoover! 21:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My age is showing: Eagles & Harry Webb! ^{(Is this wiki loading slowly for everyone else or is it just me?)} 22:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a Jimmy Buffett in there (#3), and, I think, a Rolling Stones song and some Springsteen (#4). I think the person who compiled the list is showing their age :) Secret Squirrel (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, #4 is The River. Although the rhyme they used was hardly distinctive. Evil cubic Hoover! 09:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Got #5 , #15 and #16. Had I read this earlier, I would have got #4 in 0.00001 nanoseconds - honest Worm^{(t | c)} 16:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's get organized in our geekdom. ħuman 10:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Warren Zevon (RIP), courtesy PH (Werewolves of London?)
2. Eagles, per everybody (Hotel Calipornia)
3. Jimmy Buffet, some rodent (Margaritaville)
4. Bruce Springsteen, some rodent and a vacuum cleaner (The River)
5. The Temptations (The Way You Do The Things You Do)
11. Many artists, written by Sam Cooke? (Wonderful World) - human
15. Rolling Stones (Let It Bleed)
16. Bruce Springsteen (again) - (Open All Night)

PZ

For those who don't read Professor Myers assiduously here's one that I like 02:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is actually a brilliant example of why I don't like PZ: he's fallen into a rather petty style of arguing that favors rhetorical devices and emotional appeals over substance. Also, almost everyone who reads his blog probably already agreed with that posts' main point before they even read it; he's just preaching to the choir. As a result, he's just putting an emotional spin on things that us "rationalists" already believe rather than genuinely contributing to the so-called "culture war" between science and religion. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What Tetronian said, but I'll put it this way: PZ is a totally irredeemable utter asshat. There, that was much easier. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 5:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's what I was trying to get at with that rambling paragraph. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fourth word of blog misspelled "fluorished". Stopped reading. ħuman 06:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of picking PZ apart ("as rationalists we should" not hold anyone above that sort of review) I'm wondering why he criticises afterlife stories on the grounds of it being what people want to hear as, surely, repeating that there is no afterlife is what many non-theists want to hear, right? Non-believers rationalise their dislike of an afterlife by saying how eternity would be torturous - but is this just the same line of wishful thinking reasoning as believers make? I certainly don't disagree, all actual evidence points to soulless oblivion and that without a functioning brain you have no emergent consciousness - and there is no plausible mechanism that could save it and transfer it "elsewhere" - while playing the odds says that no specific religious afterlife can possibly be true. PZ lambastes the religious for claiming to "know" what happens after you die, but he is doing the same. Granted, he is siding with probability and evidence, but he is speaking far to rhetorically for most of this to get that point across and seems just as guilty of "knowing" what happens after we die. Bill Maher puts it best in Religulous when he says "you don't know because I don't know, and you don't possess mental powers that I do not". The more interesting thing is, if religions didn't exist and thus didn't promote the idea of an afterlife, would we have this uncertainty embedded in our cultural memory? We would quite blindly accept the "great nothingness" and get on with our lives without caring about the fact that we are genuinely facing an unknown. ^gnostic 11:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You do live on in people's memories, and in the traces of your own actions and achievements. Surely that is the rationalist's afterlife. Or is it irrational to care what happens after you're not around to experience it? To your children, for example? Plenty of material for a discussion here.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Two points, First @ Human, I like that the typo was in the phrase "fluorished in ignorance". Second, Armondikov's point about not knowing is what I hate most about the theist/atheist debate. It's only because somebody invented an unprovable concept that in honesty I am forced to adopt the position of being agnostic. I am not an atheist because of evolution, geology or cosmology, I'm an atheist because religion is a human invention. The science just proves it for me. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Which I think is why Russell's Teapot was invented to demonstrate that. Problem is, many theists simply don't recognise who the burden of proof lies with. For them, the afterlife is the default option and any alternative requires evidence. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious. I wonder what could possibly be used as evidence that there is no afterlife? ħuman 02:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the PJ bashing, I get the impression that there is a belief held by some that every posy of his should be written in such a way as to try to persuade the "other side". Why? It's a blog. If he wants to use it to rant about something with which the majority of his readers will agree then I don't see the problem.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

@Genghis, I agree there, I was sort of "bending over backwards" a little with the "we don't know" point. But it is, at least, true, although maybe a little too Pyrrhonian. Hence hinting at whether such a "lack of knowledge" would weigh on our minds in any way if religion hadn't jumped in there with thoughts of a real afterlife. On Kriss' point, there is some merit to that as a "rationalist afterlife". However, I'd be concerned about branding it as an afterlife; the point of a rationalist or atheist perspective isn't just to take known religious terminology and replicate it sans God. We already have a term for it anyway; legacy. Whether it's rational or not to care about it depends on whether you think it's rational or not to be nihilistic or to assume that, because you've ceased to be, others also cease to be. I'd side against that, however, on the grounds that there is no reliable evidence that we are mere brains in vats or in a simulated reality or something weird like that. Assume the universe is WYSIWYG and just be nice by assuming other people are real - and thus it becomes better, even if you can't justify it a priori, to care about your legacy. ^gnostic 13:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Legacy is perhaps a better term, yes. I was just making the point that while the belief in an ongoing consciousness may be mistaken, just about all the effects that this belief has on actual behaviour - remembering dead relatives and friends, wanting to provide for one's children, setting one's house in order before death, caring for the environment beyond the next 50 years, and so on - are also things that all but the most hardline of rationalists would agree are a good idea. PZ seems to miss that obvious truth in his anger at all things religious.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely, although your mention of the environment has sparked a thought. Is there perhaps a dichotomy between "afterlife" and "legacy". Whereby someone who believes in an afterlife may not care too much about what happens to everyone else when they're gone? I'd be interested to see if this was a real split. It makes some sense when you look at the extreme religious right, who are very concerned about whether they go to heaven or hell, but not very concerned about whether their grandchildren will live in heaven or hell because of their decisions towards the triple-bottom-line. ^gnostic 14:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point - the I'm-alright-Jack approach to salvation. People who think the apocalypse is imminent probably aren't that bothered either.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 14:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I remember something from J.G. Ballard saying that his fear of death vanished as soon as he had grandchildren. "Well done, organism," the genes say, "you can relax a bit now." - David Gerard (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Saving disc space

A set of automatic cameras dump their motion activated pics to Flickr. But they didn't allow for the cat. 02:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

18426 pages of feet, cats and darkness. What a senseless waste of storage space. Ken would be proud. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Think about this for a moment. How much information can we now store? Is it practically indefinite? It's certainly astronomically huge and probably higher than anyone cares to comprehend, no matter how many analogies you make to the number of novels it represents. Now think about what proportion of this is crap or will never be seen or used again, ever? How much of Trent's server space is held with archives that no one is going to read through again? How much of Facebook or Myspace is taken up with redundant profiles that will never be used again? How much spam sits in email folders to never be answered or deleted? It's quite staggering, really. ^gnostic 13:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think RW takes up 20 GB or so last I asked Trent how big the backup is. What's that these days, under $5 worth of hard drive? The other day a friend gave me a 120 GB drive because it was well, you know, "obsolete". Every once in a while I go around throwing out all the "good bootable" drives that are less than 10% of the size of the largest one I own. ħuman 02:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an absolute limit to the number of bytes (not information; I can't account for advances in compression) that can be stored in the Earth, which is less than the maximum size of a ZFS filesystem, i.e. 2^128 bytes. Evil cubic Hoover! 13:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And 2^127 of those bytes will probably be porn. I jest, of course, there's been studies done and apparently porn is significantly less than 1% of the internet, contrary to popular belief. ^gnostic 14:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not on my connection it aint! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What only half? - π 14:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I just realised I had a bit of a powers fail there...at least it wasn't base 10 where I would have implied a measly 10% was pron. How would you express it, 1.8^128 is 90% of 2^128? ^gnostic 14:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is... 0.9 is about 2^-0.15, so you could have said 2^127.85.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 14:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I spent ages beautifully typesetting the same conclusion, and then you ECed me. KRIIIIIIISSSS! Evil cubic Hoover! 14:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry - you're not the first to be pipped on the home straight by Akabusi. Awoogar!--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah shit. Of course, 1.8^128 would be 1.8 x 1.8 x 1.8 x 1.8.... NOT 1.8 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2... dumbass. That's two maths fails in quick succession. I'm on a fucking roll. ^gnostic 16:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Pr0n on the Intertubez

Regarding the prevalence of adult material on-line...

Sometime in the early nineties, I took a Unix system administration class, and one of the topics was how to set a server name. The instructor asked a question as an aside: "what's the most common server name on the internet?"

Several guesses were made, generally things from Star Trek, Star Wars, or Tolkien. None were correct, so the instructor gave us a hint: "what's been responsible for the explosive growth of the internet over the past few years?"

Without missing a beat, I answered "pornography?"

When the class stopped laughing, he said "true, but the answer is one you'll kick yourself for not getting: www. After that, the most common server name is 'venus'." MDB (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Diary…

Today I managed to install 4GB of memory without the computer going into meltdown. Admittedly this doesn't sound like that great an achievement until you realise that about 2 years ago I managed to get through 3 motherboards in an 18 month period, all while wearing an anti-static device. Now all that is left to do is decided what I'm going to do for my birthday tomorrow. Am I:

a) Going to go on a spree and see how many fundamentalists I can batter using only a single communion wafer and the power of my mind?

or

b) Enjoy the true Eucharist: a pizza and a fine rioja?

I guess I'll find out Wednesday when I wake up and either read the headline: "Psychic Bread Killer on the Loose", or smell of cheesy garlic bread-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd pay money to see that headline. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy birthday Mr. Dwarf. I hope you'll be released on bail so you can share your story. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 20:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Saw this go past yesterday...

...and did a double-take. perhaps Andy could hire one for his next CP field trip? Totnesmartin (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Brian sure does have a nice motor! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Human Microbiome Project

I read about the HMP in the papers today (it was in the hospital waiting room, I don't buy the Telegraph). Basically it's trying to genetically sequence all the bacteria in the human body. Fascinating stuff. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds... cool, but very hard. There was something in Nature from 2006 that found that 70% of the species in the human gut were unique to the individual: sequencing that would take a very long time. Broccoli (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Age restrictions

The images at the top of this bar make it perfectly clear that it is all about drinking alcohol. I think we should forbid under-age people to enter this bar. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

They are free to watch us drink. And also to sniff our farts. ħuman 06:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Plus they are free to drink as long as they are over 14 and having a meal.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 13:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Remember, drinking laws might be different in the shadowy developing nation where RW is hosted... Lyra § talk 14:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope the cheerleader has a fake ID. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Kitchen stays open all night. So we're good. Just no strippers. And hide the heroine. Quaru^{dishrag - You can't explain that!} 18:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My four year old daughter is constantly coming up to me while I'm on the laptop going "Daddy? Can you go to the page where there's the funny drinking guys? I want to see that one throw up again... And the one who drinks the beer you do." (I drink Guinness.) The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Now isn't that's one of the cutest things you could ever hear? SJ ^Debaser 09:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

iPhone

I have recently decided to purchase one of these newfangled technological devices. Since you all seem much more tech-savvy than I, I was wondering whether I should get the iPhone 4, the 3Gs, or the vanilla 3G. And don't say anything like "Get the Android, it's better because I have one because I'm a complete tool", I have my mind set on an Iphone. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity why have you set your mind on an iPhone rather than something like the HTC EVO Sprint, which is far superior in every way? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur, why do you have your mind set on a iPhone rather than something like the Jitterbug, which is superior in every way? DickTurpis (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you left-handed? Is your right hand always free? --85.76.6.138 (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hehe. At least you can make calls on the Jitterbug. To claify, I'm not saying you should buy something else, I'm just curious as to why you've set your mind on an iPhone when you don't appear to know much about them (or competitor phones). Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've had an iTouch for a while and quite like it, plus the very convincing argument that that I already have my phone on ATT, and have to pay tons of money to terminate my plan and switch networks to get a Sprint or Verizon phone. Theemperor.

Fair do's. Joke: "I've just bought an iPod Touch. It's just like an iPhone except you can't make calls on it. Oh wait, it's exactly like an iPhone". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and waste your money. After all you can't take it with you.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

At least he has a better reason for buying it than the usual "it has apps" or "it looks cool". Makes a refreshing change. My nephew wants to spend £1,800 on a Macbook Pro. When I asked him what he's going to use it for he smirked a bit, ummed, then just shrugged his shoulders. He just wants it to show off to his mates. Think of the awesome gaming PC he could build with that kind of cash! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait, eighteen hundred pounds? Isn't that like $3500+? How can a Macbook even cost that much? (Incidentally, I would have to play a $300 upgrade fee to even be eligible for an iPhone, which is another $200, plus tax, plus an extra $25 a month for service charges, and it's still cheaper than switching carriers, so I'm stuck with my old phone until I get eligible for an upgrade, which is in two years. Hey, AT&T! FUCK YOU!) --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 20:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume it's this model. Astounding. Apple have made a fortune from treating the general public like fucking idiots. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm. It's interesting because you could probably pick up a desktop that's twice as powerful for less than a quarter of the cost, and then still buy a netbook for a couple hundred for when you need to sit in a internet cafe looking cool like a asshole. Then, you still can have two or three thousand dollars left over for hookers erm, savings. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 21:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from the description he gave me it's more likely to be this. £2k for a 2.8Ghz system with only 4Gb RAM and half a terrabyte storage? I'll say one thing for apple, the have the best marketing department in the world. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this deserves an article y'know. Starting with points from here. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, Crundy, this is getting really boring. You've gone from being someone who at least presented a different perspective on the boring old "WINDOZE SUX LOL" opinions to a raging Apple hater. Stop it. Evil cubic Hoover! 21:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

YAY OS FLAMEWAR! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 21:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm no great fan of Apple; my point is that Crundy criticises raving anti-Microsoft haters while doing the exact same thing towards Apply. Evil cubic Hoover! 21:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes PH. That's called consistency. See, if he'd been criticizing Microsoft, it would be hypocrisy. But he's making a perfectly legitimate argument: the opposition sucks and his product is awesome. Duh, that's like Marketing 101. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

bh --85.77.241.2 (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not super pro-Windows, I just think that £2k for an average spec machine is ludicrous. If you hate Microsoft and want to use something else then you might as well buy a decent spec PC and install a linux distro on it. I'm not a "raging Apple hater", I just think that sometimes they're insulting their own demographic's intelligence. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Sorry to derail further, but is there any internal difference between a Mac and PC, now that Apple's running on intel systems? Is it any more than an operation system choice with a special keyboard and pricetag to match? 23:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that $3k+ machine is like two or three times the machine my 5-6 year old used $160 laptop is. Let's see, roughly same speed processor, twice the RAM, three times as much hard drive, probably 8 times the battery life... ħuman 01:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a lot of small touches that are well thought out. The mouse, the power cable, the keyboard, that amazing battery, and OSX.. But the actual, like, motherboard hardware? Aside from the BIOS, it's identical. But that "complete package" is worth something. For me, at least. I love my MacBook, and will likely replace it with another one when it dies. It just behaves so much better than any Windows PC I've ever had. It helps that Apple cheats, though Quaru^{dishrag - You can't explain that!} 03:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Macs die? I think I have thrown away 8 working PCs by now, just because they were superseded. See my comment elsewhere about HDDs under 10% the size of my biggest one. ħuman 08:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm on my first Mac. I assume the battery will eventually die, and when that happens, I'll either get a new MacBook, or a new battery, depending on how I feel at the time. Or, it'll eventually get outdated, and I'll need something more powerful. But my demands are much lower today than they were even 5 years ago, so this guy is likely to keep kickin' it for some time. I don't think I've ever thrown out a functioning PC. And I've thrown away a lot. But mostly, the over-clocked vid card melts itself, a power outage fries my power supply and my mother board is flakey ever after.. shit like that. I used to use really bargain basement parts in my PCs ('cause I was in HS, and poor) and always had trouble with that. Now, not so much. Quaru^{dishrag - You can't explain that!} 12:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the original subject: Iphone 4, don't even think differently (pun intended), and here's a couple of reasons. First off, it has an amazing camera. (Yes, I said camera, not screen. The screen is nice but in reality a rather irrelevant upgrade) Check out this link http://boingboing.net/2010/06/22/iphone-4-photography.html or browse through this thread http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=946756&page=11 to see what I mean. That's because Apple focused in having a nice, plenty of light collecting, sensor rather than megapixels and frankly I'd say its the best mobile phone camera out there with a couple of very specific exceptions (Nokia N8). That makes it "good enough" to finally count as a point & shooter replacement. That's a major piece of hardware to -1 out of your household & pocket and/or always have with you.

Second. Resale value. Someday there's going to be an iphone 5 or similar and you will probably want that. Sure Apple might be a disgusting example of brand collectivism, which is approaching religion, but it is because of that their stuff have cccrazy ebay resale value. Right now, even after all this time since the iphone 4 got released, an iphone 3G goes in ebay for 200-300 pounds and an iphone 3GS for 300-400 pounds. The less generations you are behind, the greater your future subsidy, courtesy of Apple fans.

Three. It is better. Better processor, more RAM, better resolution, LED flash (all LED flashes are crap, but they do make a very good flashlight with the app that keeps them on permanently) and another piece of gaming hardware (the gyroscope) extra. If you are going to be spending a huge amount of money in a narcissist, autistic, technological masturbation device, all the while knowing that children in Africa starve, as well as live in constant fear that you might get mugged in the street and lose half a grand in an instant, then you might as well get the better one. (Do not, under any circumstance, get the 32Gb one tho. Now that's a rip off!). Sen (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I recently moved to an Android, away from the iPhone/iTouch world, err.. I forgot where I was going with that. If you're getting an iPhone, you should get the 4, unless someone is giving you a crazy deal on a previous gen that they want to get rid of. But, as someone intimate with Apple products, I'd recommend the Android. And while trying to find a "real" job, I spend all my free time writing iPhone apps.. So I'm not really partial towards Android or anything. Though I do intend to get on developing there too. Need real internet to do anything more right now.. But, ultimately, it's your phone, and whichever one makes you happy is what you should get. My best friend has an iPhone, and loves it. Quaru^{dishrag - You can't explain that!} 12:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Sensuous Curmudgeon's Correlation Composition Contest

Fill in the blank: "Creationism is to evolution as _____ is to _______," and put your answer here. Sterile card game 16:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Done & done. Easy to spot, one of them mentions Conservapedia.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"... as ticks are to rhinoceros." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As squirrels are to televisions ^gnostic 21:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a few. ħuman 00:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I added mine (as IanR). Sterile card game 01:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the astrology/astronomy one. It's the only one that makes any sense as the two are absolute worlds apart in their ideology. One is science, one is bullshit - albeit an ancient belief that was thought true for many years. ^gnostic 08:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I like all of mine. And a few others, like the astro/astro one. ħuman 08:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Bieber, meet Sigur Ros, Stars of the Lid, and m83

Found on Gizmodo. Remarkably good stuff. 18:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this on Giz and listened to a few minutes of it. Very soothing, and I'll likely listen to the entire thing tomorrow in the gym. --Sid (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

35 minutes of Justin Beiber is better than 4 minutes of Justin Bieber. On a related note, I'm going to Paulstretch some My Bloody Valentine and see how it turns out. I suspect it won't be as good as Paulstretching something like Bieber or Hillary Duff what with the fast changes and really really really tight digital recordings. I shall report back. 03:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

35 minutes of Justin Beiber is better than 4 minutes of Justin Bieber. That makes less sense than quantum mechanics, but we have very convincing evidence for it... ^gnostic 08:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean that Sigur Ros sped 800% up sound like Bieber? Sen (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Can the Conservapedia namespace be used as a review-critique of the parallel Conservapedia article?

For instance, there is the Barack Obama article. So how about a Conservapedia:Barack Hussein Obama critique on Conservapedia's Barack H. Obama? Thanks.205.189.194.208 (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. ħuman 00:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I think that's like... Exactly what it is. Quaru^{dishrag - You can't explain that!} 03:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Homosexuality

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Evolution

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:atheism

These are at least the major ones. ^gnostic 08:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

*SNORK*

Did you know, Ray Comfort published a book called "Moody Gold". I laughed for about 5 minutes. A hint for Ray and other non-British people]. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins on More 4

Just a reminder for UK residents. Richard Dawkins is taking a bash at faith schools on More 4 this evening at 21:00.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Any good? Dawkins' TV stuff tends to be hit-and-miss for me. ^gnostic 22:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Mini software rant.

There seems to be a trend these days for software to provide 'download-installers' (for want of a better name), so when you download something you think "ooh, that was fast" but when you run it, it starts downloading a new gazzillion byte file. Why not have just one download? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Part of it, I'm sure, is to make it appear faster, but I can think of other reasons:

• An installer can pick the best server to use to get the big file.
• An installer can analyze the user's system and determine specifically which version of the application to download.

MDB (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Whilst the installer is running it can provide "Users who purchased WallySoft Virus Provider also purchased..." type messages. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think MDB has the right rationale for it, but I agree it can be annoying if it's not made clear - but that's the fault of whichever moron wrote the marketing blurb on the website, rather than a problem with download-installers themselves. ^gnostic 12:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Any modern software package is going to require some form of installer, even if you download it at the same time as the main files. There is one pseudo-advantage to an advertising banner -- if it's one that changes, you can tell your installation is still progressing and not hung up. (Though there are certainly less rude ways to to do it than an ad.) MDB (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha! MDB has took the wind right out of your sails with a disappointingly rational answer to your rant! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there are probably a number of reasons. One lame one is there isn't some 20MB file you'll never need wasting trivial HDD space afterwards. Another is that the installer can (probably) avoid downloading bits you don't need, and can (probably) be installing and configuring the early bits while it "orders up" the later bits. Also, it can more readily back up your porn to their server... oops. ħuman 01:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you wanted an irrational response? Well, how about

Software installers are a tool of the Illuminati. The separate installer is something forced on major software companies by the Illuminati, so they can read all the files on your computer in a few seconds, and transmit them to their secret master file server in Chattanooga. (Ha! I'll bet you never suspected the Illuminati's secret server was in Chattanooga, did you? That whole "Choo-Choo" thing is just a cover story.) There, the hyper-mega computers analyze all your data, looking for potential blackmail material.

This is all true. A guy I picked up at PW's Place last week was a former Illuminati operative via the nearby NSA and he explained it all to me. MDB (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That's it, you've convinced me! I'm going back to a typewriter. --PsyGremlinParlez! 16:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You think a typewriter will keep you safe from the global conspiracy? In the immortal words of Homer J. Simpson, "now who's being naive?" MDB (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes the Illumenati abuse us with all sorts of fun "free" things that they must be using to spy on us. I've invented some software classifications called consentware and uum, I need an opposing term... deceptoware or something. Consentware uses standardized EULAs so any funny stuff is obvious. So that will take care of that. ~ Lumenos 07:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

One other advantage would seem to be that they might resume an interrupted download. ~ Lumenos 07:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Most modern browsers handle that pretty well, but, sure, you may be right, I may be crazy, but it just might be a lumetic you're looking for! ħuman 07:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they do if you restart the browser. Say you are on dial-up and you want to shut down your computer without waiting an hour. Plenty of download managers can do this but packaging it with the "installer" is the only way to force most people to use it.

If you don't trust your software you need at least a software firewall to stop it from phoning home. But some software (eg AOL) will punch hole in your software firewall anyway. Outpost firewall seems to be one of the few open source ones, for Windows, but it seemed like it wasn't following its own rules and I think it would have to be re-authored to prevent it searching for updates. Without updates you may risk hacker getting in. That is true of any software but particularly things that connect out, it seems.

I've long dreamed of learning an OS that was as minimalist as possible, so that the source code could be reviewed by as many people as possible perhaps even myself. I guess more people are likely to read more popular source code however. I know there are Illumenati among us, and this "question" is undoubtedly an attempt to learn Lumenati security techniques. So there you have some clues, gray ones, and just everyone relax and read a bit longer consentware memeware this post copysate Lumenati News and Information Service. Remember to wear tin foil hat at all times. ~ Lumenos 17:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I shat bricks when I found out this wasn't a satire

(Rockwell Automation is a real company.)

Truly, the world is full of things I have no hope of understanding. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I do feel a bit sorry for this guy—he probably works in marketing and so has no idea what he's actually saying. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What a piece of trash. The Rockwell fnurdlesheep quatum trakizar is a far better auiodla machine, i bet this thing can't even calibrate the flex operational trackincow's of my grandma's furbblesnurbble. --Onion <talk> 18:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that he doesn't even work at Rockwell. Companies often get outside agencies to produce sales videos and voice-overs so he might be a professional actor (hey, not everyone gets to work in Hollywood). Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Just because Rockwell is a real company doesn't mean that it isn't a spoof. Probably an in-house engineering joke. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. Ah yes, here you are. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Pah, that's nothing more than a tarted-up glib-shaft energrator. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's strange, because if I remember my media training properly, they've done everything wrong- namely, bundle their vid with technical jargon. That said, it's one of the key points of Quantum Woo to jargonize everything to make it seem more legit. ^gnostic 19:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I thought that I recognized their logo - I remember passing one of their buildings on the way to my dentist or something. ~SuperHamster Talk 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

@Genghis: Ah. Well I feel silly now. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Total satire. On a side note, I know some people who work there, and many of the parts/companies mentioned in the video, I've worked with. (Allen-Bradley, Rockwell Software, Dodge... ) In fact, I have a friend who's trying desperately to go work there. But who wants to live in Wisconsin? It makes Flint look pleasant.. Ok, not really. But at least there are people here. Quaru^{dishrag - You can't explain that!} 23:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

LOLOLOLOLLLOOOLLL! Interestingly, at least one piece of that over-inflated jargon - it has a switching power supply as opposed to a transformer. It gets funnier and funnier as it goes on. ħuman 01:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This is many years old (2001 I think, I've had it on my server since then anyway), and is total shite - I can't believe some of you have fallen for it! It's just wonderful comedy, and the only reason people fall for it is that the guy is a real voiceover actor who's got that real voiceover voice. It's just perfectly judged. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 07:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Scroll up'n'click. It started in like, the 1940s. ħuman 08:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hint, that would be the link that I posted. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Never ceases to surprise me

So this friend of mine on Facebook recently posted a status that asked whether or not the mosque near Ground Zero is good idea. I thought, "Great! Time for a nice, logical discussion with some of my classmates, where we can share views!" Oh man, how I regret that. Going through the posts, here's what some of the comments consisted of (and note that this is coming from the majority of the posters, and that they're all in high school):

• The Taliban were responsible for 9/11.
• They're building the mosque ON Ground Zero (multiple people, at least three, said this).
• They are planning to build the mosque to be higher than the Twin Towers (<-- My favorite)
• Because of 9/11, most Muslims hate the US to the point where they basically want to terrorize it.
• It's not just "Muslims", it's "Muslims/Terrorists".

Now, the first comment is a bit understandable. So they got confused a little, especially since the Taliban are on the news all the time these days, and that's fine, however wrong it is. But what made me uneasy was the second comment, because not one, not two, but three people (including the poster of the status) thought that they were building the mosque on the actual site of the WTC. Sheesh, if you don't have any clue about a topic, don't start a debate on it. I don't know where they get their news from, but they certainly should consider switching stations. Now the third one was the one in which I had to really strain myself from calling them an outright dumbass. Making the mosque, which is planned to be 13-stories high, higher than the Twin Towers, which stood at 110 stories? The first two bullets showed examples of people just being misinformed and having a simple lack of knowledge. Fine by me, all they have to do is pull out Wikipedia and they'll get all they need. However, you have to be genuinely disconnected from reality and lost to even consider that a religious group, whose funding we are unaware of, is going to build a mosque that will dominate the New York skyline by passing the height of former tallest buildings in NY. It's not even a realistic possibility. The last two are just the result of your average, stereotypical, and clueless lemming, but that's 'k, they're just following their rich daddy's ideology. Anyway, I'm kind of scared as to the fact that these people are the one's that I'll be graduating with and the ones that will be sent out into the real world to do, you know, actually important stuff.

There, my big rant is over. Since I couldn't blow it off on them, as I have a reputation, and since I don't have a blog, I decided to unleash my anger here. Enjoy. ~SuperHamster Talk 04:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You're going to graduate high school? There goes Western civilization! ħuman 05:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hamster, you get more boring with every word you write. Advice: avoid writing long messages. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad Idiot #x. I think bad post. I prefer clever troll to dumb wunz. ħuman 06:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

SH is my mortal enemy. I don't have time to make my comments wittier when it comes to insulting him. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If it were a mere hamster, I could understand your mortal enmity. However, ey are a SUPERHamster, and hence not mortal. ħuman 06:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Goddammit, he's stealing my bit!! SJ ^Debaser 11:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

PROTIP: Never bring up this sort of thing on Facebook, you'll find out your friends are dumber than you think and next time you see them it will be very, very awkward. ^gnostic 09:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, this reminds me of a Facebook comment conversation I had with a few other students. This one was about the court decision on Prop 8. One of the first people to comment basically stated that everyone should be prepared for "the big earthquake" to hit, because God would not stand for the "abominations" any longer. I was at first glad that he made himself so blatantly sarcastic, but then when someone called him out on the parody, he revealed that was really the way he felt. Poe's Law gets me every time. -- JArneal 10:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

See Tea Party Organizers for more anti-Islam madness. EddyP (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that is bad. But why earthquake? Is it because it's pretty much the only natural disaster you can count on happening anyway so you can point to it and say "see, I told you"? ^gnostic 11:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Because here in the States, we're forever waiting for the creation of Arizona Bay. Since it's never really going to happen, t least not how people think of it, it will appear miraculous if it does? Therefor god will create Arizona Bay to get rid of all the damn liberals? Quaru^{dishrag - You can't explain that!} 12:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't Armageddon get rid of all them nasty liberals in a much more efficient manner, and as a bonus, send all of them goodhearted Christians to a place where everything is oh-so-lovely and they can bask all day in the glory of God? I'd say if you're going to believe in that stuff, you might as well take it to the full extent.

Oh, and an update: Obama is spending so much of our debt building mosques in the Middle East that we should not allow a mosque to be built here (as if Obama is funding the building of the mosque). Oh, and they're building a mosque because New York is so big and they want everyone in New York City to follow Islam by building this mosque, which is, of course, what will happen (according to the fair and balanced source, there's already over 100 mosques in NYC). ~SuperHamster Talk 15:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I liked Bob's point, exactly how far away from Ground Zero would it be acceptable to build a community centre mosque?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's easy, 2,752 feet. One for each person killed. Isn't it obvious? DickTurpis (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you forgot to subtract the number of Muslims that died in the attack. What was the number? 23? 60? 1,200? ~SuperHamster Talk 18:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely it should be two feet per person?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Twenty years from now this incident will be used at the JFK School of Government to teach Freshmen how not to step in doo-doo. Whose screw up was this? Axelrod? Not for nothing has the president now earned the name Saddam Hussein Obama. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yah, and Saddam Hussein Obama wants to lecture us on private property rights at the same time he wishes to expropriate the private property rights of the top 2%? Jimminy crickets.... nobs^{don't bother me} 19:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Rob, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. DickTurpis (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's some capitalist thinking: If someone wants to give you money, you take it. The Muslims are going to pay American construction crews, and American furniture movers or whatever, and American utilities and in the future, American maintenance crews (painters, plumbers etc) in exchange for a building that produces nothing. This means that a big amount of money is going to be transferred from a religion, to the locals around, who in turn can spend it on pork chops and beer. That's a good thing. Sen (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Bring the Oil Money back home! ħuman 09:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This would be a non-conforming commercial construction loan, which is hard to get financing in the best of times. Not to mention the premanent loss of revenue in New York real estate taxes because of its religious tax exempt stauts. How are they able to proceed under these circucmustances? Maybe Pelosi can gaurantee the loan, and bail 'em out if they have trouble if jobs are on the line. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What are your views on Park 51 and the planned 911 Qu'ran burning in Florida?

Here (Park 51) and here (Qu'ran burning)?205.189.194.208 (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Park 51, no problem with it. If Muslims can't build a funny building for their whacky beliefs then in fairness there are a lot of churches that should be turned in to bars. On the Qu'ran burning, meh. It's up to them if they want to spend money on books they're going to burn. I'm sure that Muslims will take it in the same pragmatic way that Christians would if their roles were reversed. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 22:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Park 51's good to go. If anything, I think it will have it's benefits in the long term. As for the Qu'ran burning, that's just disgusting in my opinion, as is burning any other religious symbol. Those people are just full of hate. I love the guy in the interview, though - he says that there is no such thing as a happy Muslim, though he's got to be the most depressing and emotion-lacking man I've ever seen in my life. ~SuperHamster Talk 23:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think both are fine. The Muslims are putting a useless building to good use by turning it into a community centre, and the protesters are putting a useless book to good use by turning it into heating. I find the burning slightly distasteful as it is being done for no better reason than to offend, but as Concernedresident said, once they have bought it it is theirs to do with as they wish. - π 23:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The community center can be built anywhere they get the permits and funding, and you can burn any book you damn well please (so long as you buy it first). Anything else wold be hypocritical. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff people. However, would there be room for mocking the mosque over where it gets its funding (Saudi Arabia?)?205.189.194.208 (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really, unless the money is being used for something illegal or was obtained in an illegal fashion were it comes from is no more my business than who is buying Qu'ran's for rednecks. - π 23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit unimaginative, and book burning hasn't exactly got the best rep as a form of protest. Personally, I'd hire an industrial shredder and mix up a few gallons of flour nd water paste, and encourage people to come make papier mache sculptures of Mohammed. Two blasphemies for the price of one! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I know a lot of people don't hold with any book burning but it's an emotional objection rather than a rational one. There are so many copies of the Qu'ran or the Bible that burning a few isn't going to make one iota of difference to the continued existence of the works. It's not like all the libraries and bookshops are being emptied of the work and people will no longer be able read or buy them ever again. The internet has now made the physical availability of all books a moot point as the same ideas and words can be obtained in other forms. Let's not forget that millions of books are destroyed each year. That's not to say that some books should not be burned but this is really only applicable to historic tomes where the physical entity itself has greater importance than words on the page. A recent case in the UK concerned someone slicing pages out of a folio version of Shakespeare's works and many ancient atlases have been irretrievably damaged by thieves. I know that books were regarded as special when I was a child but often they were scarce and expensive commodities. Many books are now printed in their hundreds of thousands extremely cheaply in eastern Europe or Asia, if these happen to be religious books then so what. Religious people will always seem get upset about something. We see a similar thing when people burn flags, other people really get very angry about it. It's all a consequence of people imbuing symbols with too much worth. That said, those who wish to burn the Qu'ran are doing so out of some xenophobia to try and upset Muslims, it is about a larger political group seeking to oppress a smaller one and that stinks. As for the Park 51 thing I think it is a case of people tarring all Muslims with the same brush as the 9/11 bombers, people claiming that they will be upset every time they have to pass the mosque. I think that the Scottish bishop was right last week when he said that there is a culture of revenge in the US and it doesn't sit well with what they claim to be as a Christian nation. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 00:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, Genghis, Muslims are hardly a small political group. They're certainly larger than fundamentalist Christians... --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to their position in US society, not globally. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 06:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe these majoritarians-of-sorts should burn the Qu'ran in Saudi Arabia (or at least a place closer). ;-)205.189.194.208 (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The sad thing is, as far as I can tell, bin Laden's whole plan with 9/11 was to stir up hatred between the US and the Middle East. And once again, these idiots are doing exactly what he wants them to. --Gulik (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly why I think the mosque should not be denied the right to be built near Ground Zero. By not allowing the mosque to be built, the US would basically be submitting themselves to exactly what the terrorists wanted, and that's for the US to be scared and hateful of Islam. Allowing the building of the mosque is, in a way, a message that states that the US is still strong in their principles and will put events like 9/11 behind them when it comes to doing the right thing. The US can't remain offended about a mosque being put near Ground Zero forever. The guy whose brainchild is to build the mosque said himself, in regards to the mosque, that "We want to push back against the extremist." ~SuperHamster Talk 02:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can imagine Bin Laden going "Mwaahaha!! Dance, puppets, dance!!" right now and loving it. I also second Jeeve's 2-for-1 blasphemy suggestion above. ^gnostic 08:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes to both, 'cuz Freedom. Slightly opposed to the burning because it increases your carbon footprint when you could just recycle. Sen (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, come to think about it, I believe that regular book burning should commence at schools in order to drive that point across. At least every major religious book should be burned once and then have follow ups based on students suggestions. Granted, this could lead in the south in a lot of Darwin origin of the species books getting burned, at which point, the next lesson ought to be on how every publisher never sells a book at a loss... (thus driving home the third lesson regarding not being a git). Sen (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the traditional British approach to defacement of religious books, but it really only works with illustrated books: Draw long snake-like penises and Hitler moustaches on everyone. The Qu'ran is problematic, due to its worshippers being in denial of crayons and Etchasketch, but I'm confident that something similar could be found. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 10:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Joe Orton, and his lover/murderer were classics in the field. The books they defaced are now part of a prized collection, ironically. ħuman 10:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of burning things

Burn the Confederate Flag Day. - π 23:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few Confederate flag burning videos, 1, 2, 3, and 4. However, most seem lame. Any better vids?205.189.194.208 (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol, context-based ftw. I got an ad for Rand Paul for Senate. Keywords: racist, hatred, tea party... ħuman 00:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of upgrading Burn the Confederate Flag Day to Burn Every Flag Day. That could get quite interesting. DickTurpis (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So maybe let's get a Qu'ran, a Bible, and Torah; wrap them in an American Flag, and a Confederate flag--and maybe the French flag as well, douse it with BP gasolene, Jack Daniel's, and Napoleon Brandy; light it with a sparkler; and burn it to the tunes of Toby Keith, Sweet Home Alabama, chants of the more incendiary Qu'rannic verses, and La Marseillaise--perhaps sung by Édith Piaf; and party on. ;-)205.189.194.208 (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Add a couple more flags - Israel, Iran, Russia, China - shit on the lot and sell it as modern art commenting upon the state of the world today. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely we can get more flags than that. The EU flag is a good one (they have one, don't they?) Union Jack, hell any and every national flag. Of course, Toby Keith is a completely inappropriate soundtrack for such an endeavor (remember, we're burning the stars 'n' stripes and the Bible here too). No, the most nihilistic of the punk rock is about all that would fit. Or maybe Arvo Pärt. DickTurpis (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about being ironic, kinda like as this Toby Keith Parody or Sweet Home Alabam by the Leningrad Cowboys & Red Army Choir. ;-)205.189.194.208 (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I just watched "Sweet Home Alabama". My brain melted. MDB (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

WOW!!! "everybody in finland wear those kinda shoes and have that hairstyle, we support our bands" (from the "those were the days" comments). ħuman 02:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I now have a new favorite band. It's like Shox Lumania with the Tomlinson Singers³! ħuman 02:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And in a similar vein

People are "furious" about Raoul Moat's ashes being scattered near where he died. Even though there is no memorial or headstone that would have surely attracted curiosity if he had been buried. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What the hell, they'll be in the sea in two days, right? Just don't drink the water for a couple-three days? ħuman 09:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

From the Daily Star website: "They fear the scene could be a macabre memorial for ghoulish fans after he took his own life there at the end of a week-long rampage. WIN £50,000: PLAY DAILY STAR FANTASY FOOTBALL NOW!". Unless "Daily Star fantasy football" means football played with the heads of Daily Star staff, I'm not interested, thanks.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No no no, you are not getting it. In two days they are going to travel through a lot of towns polluting with their evilness each and every one of them, at which point they will arrive at the sea, TURNING THE ENTIRE SEA INTO AN OCEAN OF EVIL. Sen (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It would seem more responsible to erect a giant fan to ensure that the ashes are blow over to mainland Europe. Failing that some good people could volunteer to be cremated, with their ashes scattered in the same location, in order that their ashes can overwhelm the evil of Moat and fight against his evil should topless women or innocent babies accidentally inhale the ashes. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 10:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would you want to avoid drinking the water? Surely, a homoeopathic solution of murderer cures death? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Murderer's ashes also cure burns. ħuman 06:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am still not very sure how this whole homoeopathy thing works. If you piss in a river does that make it cleaner, or the more diluted waste in it is, the dirtier it is? Sen (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Only if you succuss it just right. Don't forget the schnapps- David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

CMI takes a nasty swipe at a dead man

CMI vs. Carl Sagan. Ace^X-102 04:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Carl Satan. Deal with it. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha, that article totally misrepresents the entire point of Sagan's book, not to mention that there were several factual errors (in the book, the machine was destroyed by a bomb planted by person/s unknown, not by a "malfunction". It seems like the person who wrote that article just checked up on Wikipedia and then shat out an article for CMI. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 21:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Good thing none of us ever follow that process shitting out articles for RW - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, never. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to switch to my PhD math student sock account and write an article about contour integration, despite having no idea what the hell I'm talking about. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 21:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole things reads as "We don't like Carl Sagan, therefore his fictional novel is incorrect" Ace^X-102 22:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Funny

Well I laughed anyway. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Funnier than the Onion, I must say. ħuman 09:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's brilliant. Whoever wrote that should give themselves a pat on the back. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Billy

o_O Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Meh. Stanislaw Lem already did this, about 30 years ago, with his characters discussing the consequences of practical and easily accessible time travel. There was a whole class of "temporal paraphilias", auto-paedophilia being one of them. Can't remember the rest. He may have been poking fun at the "I became my own father" type of time-travel stories.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Vote Teaparty!

Obama won`t nuke Canada - That's why I'm voting Tea Party! Gmb (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as the "Obama was born in the darkest depths of Mordor" sign goes, I do have a bumper sticker that says, "Frodo failed. Bush has the ring." MDB (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally like the "Obama is right handed just like Hiter". --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 21:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My favorite is the social security one, but these are all very funny. --Onion <talk> 00:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Very nice, I lolled. Esp. at the SS one, per Funion. ħuman 01:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know hunting homeless was illegal. My weekend just freed up.--Thanatos (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

RationalWiki in other languages? (What other languages do you speak?)

Wikipedia does it (here). Anarchopedia does it (here). Conservapedia doesn't, and likely won't (indication why not here).

As RW has grown, likely there are more members who are bi-/multi-lingual, and thus could get RW's in other languages started.

French speakers could read a RW article about Raëlism (here's the French Wikipedia article). Spanish speakers could read a RW article about Tea Party movement (here's the Spanish Wikipedia article). German speakers could read a RW article about $cientology (here's the German Wikipedia article). Danish speakers could read a bit about the Muhammad cartoon thing in the RW article about Muhammad (here's the Danish Wikipedia article). Esperantists could read a RW article about Barack Obama (here's the Esperanto Wikipedia article).

(IN YOUR FACE CONSERVAPEDIA!! IN YOUR FACE!!)
205.189.194.208 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think CP was going to get a Spannish translation, but it was scrapped when Schlafly realised he couldn't speak Spannish so couldn't vet every word to ensure it wasn't parody. But if anyone who speaks more than English and Bad English wishes to translate these articles, they are free to, and I'm sure the RWF will give support to it. ^gnostic 22:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Should I mention the strong Danish theme that prevailed over this wiki back in the day? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

How would translating work? Would there be a new namespace, or could we just make an article called Barack Obama (español)? Lyra § talk 23:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should create sites like es.rationalwiki.org, fr.rationalwiki.org, de.rationalwiki.org. They would act like separate wikis. The only issue is we might have to move all our bookmarks to en.rationalwiki.org. --Onion <talk> 23:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean RWF would have to rent more domain names? I don't think we should move English rational wiki to a new domain. It is not just bookmarks but any links that lead to RationalWiki. I think those are used to calculate Google rank. I attempt an official proposal. ~ Lumenos 03:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, fr.rationalwiki.org and es.rationalwiki.org would both be part of rationalwiki.org. --Onion <talk> 03:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I used to speak and write German really well. Unfortunately, since it isn't something I've used daily in, oh, 5 years, I'm starting to lose my fluency. However, I will be getting Rosetta Stone and re-learning it in the next couple of months. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Judging from the above Wikipedia and Anarchopedia links, the Main RW page would have links to the varying language versions of RW. This would become the www.eng.rationalwiki.org--or something like that--I leave it to those who know more about IT than I to (likely easily) figure it out.205.189.194.208 (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't need this liberal multiculturalism around here. Everyone knows English is the correct language and even Jesus spoke in American English and reduced the need for liberal vowels. Ace^X-102 23:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

He sho' talk a funny Anglish here.205.189.194.208 (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Español--Moneyman (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I used to speak French extremely well, and my pronunciation is still pretty decent, but I couldn't write for shit- my orthography was is a wreck. Plus, seeing as spellcheck and other such tools simply underline every word I write in french as wrong, I really don't want to go through and vet everything I write to insure I don't look like some kind of idiot (once spelled vous wrong on a job interview. Went downhill fast). So I tend to just keep quiet about it now. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I love the idea of having to change my bookmarks to en.rationalwiki.org. More power to anyone who wants to get this going (might need Trent to set up the sub domains?). As far as Lumenos' concern, we could always redirect rw.org to en.rw.org, or just leave the default Lumenish at the root. ħuman 04:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

On why its impractical

Its hard enough managing one wiki, I am not managing a dozen random other wikis with 1-2 users and half a dozen articles. Every instance of a wiki on the server exponential increases the management since it has to be rolled into cron jobs, backups, extensions, ect. Start by doing sub-space pages of specific translations and if it really takes off we can talk about it. tmtoulouse 04:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So just write articles like "Irack Hussein Osama (Hindi)", cat them as "articles written in Hindi" and worry about it later... ħuman 05:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much. The various language sceptical wikis probably wouldn't really be linked much at all - more like the various language Uncyclopedias than the various language Wikipedias. Still, a multilingual collection of sceptical wikis would be just the thing for the Foundation's world domination plans ... some time - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Kind of depends on having a critical mass of people who can write and correct each other's articles. It's nice to have translations, but it certainly does introduce additional overhead. Trent's idea seems sensible. Perhaps get a forum post or a more specific request for people interested in working on a small set of languages that can be covered by multiple editors? It would be awkward if one person churns out a load of German articles, yet we later find out that they're a bit iffy. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 22:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is how Wikinfo does it. If Anarchopedia can do it, why not RW? They're even less active.205.189.194.208 (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Because I doubt they have much sophistication as far as the backdrop tech management. RW has a veritable army of automated scripts and bots that keep things running smoothly. Our backup system is relatively complex to implement but is extremely robust and redundant. We run nightly content dumps, and have extensive personalizations to the wiki core software as well as general extensions. All of which takes time to manage properly and when changes have to be made there is a lot of work. Most of this stuff is seamless to the RW community at large, which means it is working, that is the thing with technological infrastructure the less obvious it is to the end users the more work it is for those that actually have to implement and manage it.

All of this would have to be implemented for any other language wikis we decided to create. RW currently has 1 guy doing technical support and that guy is actually pretty busy with real world shit most the time. In order for me to implement a plan that would drastically increase the annoying factor in managing this site I would need a good reason for it. A good reason would be that there are enough people both willing to write and read a second language wiki. This can be demonstrated by doing RW articles in other languages and catting them appropriately on this site. If it "takes off" I could be persuaded to implement a wiki for that language. tmtoulouse 22:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Despite our ambitions we are still not a particularly large site, after all we don't have the mass gawk appeal that CP has so we grow slowly but surely. I don't really see enough editors with adequate non-English language skills to fork into other languages. Germans seem to make up the largest non-English contingent but even then with just a handful of editors it would be difficult to attain critical mass because of the lack of feedback from the wider community. It is a sad indictment of Anglo-Saxon language skills but most of our foreign editors are generally proficient in English and are comfortable with editing an English language wiki. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Very well, and thanks for 'splainin'. Would the Wikinfo approach work; and could we write articles like Artikel (Deutsch)?205.189.194.208 (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

@GK, I've actually been impressed with he non-English (and I don't just the British with their fetish for "u"s!) skills held by many on this site. One tough part - say someone translates an article into Spanish - all the footnotes/ELs will be in International American English, and will need to be re-researched or something. ħuman 01:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't want to get too lovey-dovey about it but yes, the non-native English editors often are better writers in English than a significant number of the first-language English editors. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

@BoN, if people want to write in other languages then it would make more sense to use a pseudo-namespace nomenclature such as Deutsch:Artikel, then in an alphabetical listing all the same language articles are grouped together. It would also be easy to then move them to their own namespace if required. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth trying to translate a few high-profile and good quality articles (like homeopathy) and see if they attract significant numbers of non-English speakers. But I've got doubts whether it would work, because people get here either via Conservapedia, which requires English skills, or by googling stuff like Poe's law, where RW comes up in the top results. If I understand the Google page ranking mechanism correctly (and I might be confused by Ken's SEO attempts), it's mostly about incoming links, so a language-specific sub-Wiki with only a few articles linked to each other doesn't stand a chance to even get close to the top results. I don't see how viable language-based subcommunities could develop under these circumstances. Röstigraben (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's Sexy A-Levels day!

Without wishing to go all 'Ed Poor', there does seem be something to the theory that UK newspapers believe that only attractive girls in low cut tops do A-Levels Worm^{(t | c)} 16:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that you'll see many lads on the evening TV news either. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I remember a letter from about the time I got mine in that said "in this day and age where children of all races and backgrounds, and particularly boys now, are gaining top marks, why can the papers only ever show pictures of pretty white girls opening envelopes?" I've since used the "pretty white girls opening envelopes" line numerous times since and I'm glad it's not just me that's noticed! ^gnostic 14:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Obamuslim

Growing number in America believe Obama a Muslim. Question: did the organisation that carried out this survey, "Pew Research," carry out similar surveys during Bush's presidency, or do they only do it for people they have an agenda against? Bondurant (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Your link is broken. Gmb (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if Pew did so, but I do recall seeing surveys saying that a frighteningly large percent (~30%) of Americans believed Bush had advance notice of 9/11. So conspiracy theories do abound on both ends of the political spectrum. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Pew is a fairly neutral, "honest" pollster as I recall. And why would they ask people if they thought GWB was a Musselman? And, yeah, the link is still borken. ħuman 01:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted it here (the link) but moved it to WIGO:World. Ace^X-102 01:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The obviously didn't ask whether Bush was a Muslim for the same reason they don't ask whether Obama is Buddhist. It's a shame that this sort of thing seems to lend legitimacy to such a crackpot idea, but you can't ask about complete Unknown Unknowns, can you, otherwise they'd be known, right? ^gnostic 14:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I've heard about the poll, they did not ask, "Is Obama a Muslim?", they asked the open-ended question, "What religion is Obama?" MDB (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Which leads one to wonder "why?" PS, Bush is a Methodist, IIRC. Do I win? ħuman 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The content improvement conspiracy

I've nominated cryonics for cover. Please turn a jaundiced eye to it and start demanding shrubberies. It's the weekend, you're bored.

(Next I'll probably see about getting Citizendium through, though really that's pretty much ready for cover nomination IMO - anyone who agrees it's in range, feel free. And then there's bringing old cover features up to scratch, such as Conservapedian mathematics. My hot favourites are the articles we've done better than anyone, and that Wikipedia couldn't do like we do.) - David Gerard (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Cryonics is certainly a great candidate. Not sure CZ is really "on mission" enough to be front paged, though. ħuman 01:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Authoritarianism building a haven for pseudoscience. Though admittedly it is marginal. OTOH, it's the go-to article on the topic - David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's right, somehow that had slipped my mind. Yeah, if it's good, that's enough justification for fronting it. ħuman 20:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the cover status should be just as much about showing off RW's good work as it is showing our on-mission work, so if the CZ article is good and "go to" then it qualifies regardless. ^gnostic 14:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate it ;-) Most edits in the last whatever have been me and Doctor Dark polishing fine details of wording - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

EMC has also just nominated his latest masterwork, antitheism. I don't think it's ready, but it could surely benefit from a good kicking, at least to silver. Please go to comment on it - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Protest the Pope

email

Earlier this year you were one of over 28,000 people who signed our Make the Pope Pay petition. Together, we called on the Prime Minister to ask the Catholic Church to pay for the Pope's visit to the UK and to relieve the taxpayer of the cost, which we estimated to be £20 million.

Your fantastic response to our petition indicates the large reservoir of resentment in this country at the prospect of spending millions of pounds on a 'state visit' that will be predominantly religious in character.

However, as you've probably heard, the Pope is still coming – and we're all still paying for it.

The cost to the taxpayer of this state visit appears to be spiralling out of control – estimated to now be in the region of £100 million, when all security costs are taken into consideration.

If you believe, as we do, that the Pope should not come to the UK without hearing from the millions of people who oppose the interference of the Vatican State in British politics please visit the Protest the Pope website and sign up for email alerts.

We hope you will be able to participate in some of the events we have lined up, particularly the march through central London on Saturday 18 September. This will be happening while the Pope is preaching in Hyde Park and will be a reminder that not everyone thinks he is a hero. We need a good turnout for this march, so please do your best to be there and spread the word in any way you can. Details of the starting point and times can be found at the Protest the Pope website.

Other dates for your diary include the film season, a party and a debate – all details at Protest the Pope website.

21:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

They should hold Wine & Eucharist parties. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I do think that they missed the point that, even though he is religious, the pope is still a sovereign head of state. There are plenty of heads of state that are also heads of religions (Ayatollah Khomeini, anyone?), so it actually is kosher for him to be here as a diplomatic "guest" at the current government's prerogative on the taxpayer's dime. Plus, by my math brilliance, I setimate that the ~66 million people of Britan will by paying, oh, L 1.5 each(pretend that's a pound sign, I don't have the symbol on my keyboard.). By no means is that "spiraling out of control". --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, he's the head of a rather irrelevant "state", and this role of his pales in comparison to the pope's status as a religious leader. The UK doesn't even maintain a fully-staffed embassy in the Vatican anymore, and I doubt they'd spend a hundred million pounds to welcome the ruler of San Marino or some other state of comparable importance. The people who'll come to hear him speak will probably also be more interested in his religious message than any of the incredibly exciting new diplomatic initiatives in UK-Holy See relations he'll announce. This is an almost exclusively sectarian event, and it's entirely appropriate to ask the RCC to pay for the associated costs of their own publicity stunts. People who disagree with this don't want to see taxpayer money wasted in this manner, and it doesn't matter whether it's only a small amout for every person in the country - after all, only a rather small number of people will actually get there and benefit from it. Röstigraben (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Vatican is not an "irrelevant" state. It has a "population" of one billion people and exerts diplomatic and political influence as such. By that logic, the UN is also useless, and the European Union has no influence on world affairs, being only a few buildings in France and the low countries. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the Vatican has a population of a few thousand people, no economy to speak of, and nobody gives a damn about their positions as a sovereign government. What you're talking about is the Catholic church, which unfortunately is still a relevant force, and it's his position as the leader of a billion Catholics that makes the pope important. As such, he should pay the bills for his overseas visits himself, just like any other preacher that wants to drop by. Röstigraben (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What bit about the pope is the head of state of a sovereign country is not clear, Rosti? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, he's the head of state of a "country" that's so tiny as to be completely irrelevant in world affairs. In that position, it's completely unwarranted to pay that much to host him. What makes him relevant is his position as a religious leader, and they aren't entitled to protection by the host government at staggering costs, simple as that. Röstigraben (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Vatican, even as just a country, is still relevant in world affairs. They have diplomats in hundreds of countries and frequently engage in diplomatic negotiations around the world as a neutral party. They are also the ruling body of a billion catholics and thus ALSO (note the ALSO) a religious entity. But, as a sovereign state, they are still entitled to visit England and be treated as guests. Look, even common courtesy demands that. When you have a guest in your house, do you demand he pay his way through every inconvenience that you suffer due to his presence? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The pope's not entitled to anything, neither as a political nor religious leader. I'm not saying this because of my opposition to the RCC, but because it's a fact. If the UK government wants to host him, they've got every right to do so (just like I can decide on whom to treat as guests at my house), but they'll have to bear the justified criticism of taxpayers who don't want to fund this event. I won't have to share the costs myself, but I sympatize with those who don't want to see their taxpayer money spent on lavish ceremonies for some reactionary preacher. Anyway, I need to sleep now. Röstigraben (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Rosti on this one. The Vatican State is totally irrelevant in world affairs as a nation (how many troops did they send to Iraq/Afghanistan/wherever/whenever?). The only reason the primate matters is that he is the head of the child-molesting criminal organisation known as the RCC. A pound and half per person? That's a ridiculous waste of tax money. ħuman 02:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Huw, you can't measure global influence by how many troops they have. Nothing is that simple. In the book I'm reading now, it relates and anecdote about how when Napoleon invaded Italy, he told his man in Rome to "Treat the Pope like he has a half million soldiers under his command", because of the immense wealth and power and prestige of the Catholics, with the Pope as the de facto and de jure head. Just because we're atheists doesn't mean that we should ignore the fact that one in every six people is, theoretically, under the umbrella that the Pope is holding. Many Catholics vote as a bloc, giving the Pope quite a decent chunk of authority in even the US. He's not a man to be trifled with, and if anything should be accorded more respect that an "ordinary" leader of a country, simply because he's so much more powerful than just about any other world leader you'd care to name. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You missed the pojnt. His Eminence represents a religion, not a nation, and should be treated as such. Oh, and his "religion" covered up priests raping children for decades and still pussy-foots around the horrific crimes his employees committed. ħuman 03:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That £1.5 per person would go a long way in international aid and I curse the name of Gordon Brown for inviting the pope in the first place. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 06:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

State visits are normally only accorded to the head of state of significant players on the world stage, the President(?) of San Marino would probably not qualify and if s/he did certainly wouldn't be ferried around the country; dinner at No. 10 and lunch at the Palace if s/he's lucky. When a foreign leader does visit it often entails a bit of quid pro quo to enhance trade links or aid. What benefit can the Vatican, as a country, offer to the UK? The UK government will not be able to exert any influence on Catholic policies, they'll carry on doing things in their own way regardless. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it is very questionable if the Vatican counts as a "proper" state, regardless of what its status is. The FAQ of the protest-the-pope website covers a little bit of the history of what the Vatican is. Then ask yourself whether, as a state it is any more viable and worthy of nearly 8-9 figures worth of investment for a supposed "state visit". I could just about stomach that sort of cash for Obama coming over. As has been said, state visits are about inter-state religions as a US state visit or a European state visit would therefore be more than tolerable; as a relationship between states the Vatican gives the UK nothing. It has also been made clear that this "state visit" will also be primarily religious in nature. He's probably going to give some blessings and he's also going to speak out against things like the UK's liberal policies, like more progressive sex education and not hanging gay people. This sort of thing would not be tolerated on a normal state visit. ^gnostic 14:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

With a population of <1000 (that's one thousand) and an area <1km² it's not a country - it's a church. 14:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the main things he will do here is to beautify Cardinal John Henry Newman and separate him from any suspicion that he may have been homosexual. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ho ho ho, ass to mouth fun.

I am throwing a dinner party tomorrow night and after we eat I am going to suggest we watch a movie. I aint telling anyone but I am going to put this on. Ho Ho Ho....Ace^X-102 08:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've heard of that movie elsewhere. It looks pretty sexy nasty. I threw a party the other night, 2 hours into it and one of my friends had removed all his clothes save for his underwear and shoes and remained that way for the remaining 11 hours he was in my house. SJ ^Debaser 11:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Memo to self. Never, ever again follow Ace's links while eating lunch. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 11:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I am gonna have fun. Ace^X-102 11:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have to even mouse-over that link to know exactly what you were talking about. It's really not worth it. It's probably just a couple of inches over the "so-bad-its-good" hump and back into "so-bad-its-awful" territory. ^gnostic 14:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Good Grief!

http://christwire.org/2010/08/is-my-husband-gay/ ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.23.208.15 / talk / contribs}

List of Poe's Law examples#Ministries and churches. --ZooGuard (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that site's a pretty obvious parody. --Onion <talk> 16:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You think you know people...

So, I'm visiting a relatively old friend yesterday and whilst we were busy downloading the internet, one file at a time, we start talking about how pharmaceutical companies won't release a cure for the common cold, because they make more off the curing the common cold's symptoms' drugs. Suddenly he goes off on a tangent about how Hitler wasn't that bad and in fact was leading the ancient ongoing fight between the pagans and Christianity, that had been started by the Vikings. And he struck a deal with Roosevelt to ship all the Jews to America, in order to fulfil a promise that the Jews would not take over Europe, like they had America via the Federal Reserve. And the Holocaust never happened and if you check the records, you'll see there were 6 million illegal Jewish immigrants into the US between 1934 and 1945. Oh yes, and Hess was geared to take over from Hitler after the war, to be the peaceful dictator, and was trying to negotiate peace with Churchill when he flew to the UK. That is why he was kept in solitary confinement all those years, to prevent him telling the truth.
Needless to say, I was gobsmacked. --PsyGremlinHable! 10:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And which country do you live in? 11:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

er... why? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 11:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you respond by sticking your oily penis in their ear? Ace^X-102 11:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

ACE! How many times must I tell you not to discuss my penis in public? --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Susan's question was rhetorical and implied "what did you expect in a country where racial segregation was so recently dismantled?" Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that is unfair question in that many, if not the majority, of South Africans would be truly offended to be shackled to their past segregations. Ace^X-102 11:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, good point. Altho that's why I was so surprised. They're basically quazi-hippie love-everything types, so for this stuff to suddenly come out of left field was doubly shocking. --PsyGremlinPraat! 11:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Now now, back the fuck up here. I think Susan's "And which country do you live in?" in analogous to Susan talking about some drunk at the pub in Essex babbling crazy about immigration and me saying "And which country do you live in?" Ace^X-102 11:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually Genghis & Psy are right. The only South African I've met in the past ten years was also the person who most confirmed my distaste for right wingers. She was a true apartheid^[sp?] apologist and visibly flinched when passing Afro-Caribbeans in the street. She wouldn't use public toilets 'cause they might have used them and was thoroughly obnoxious. It was one of the reasons I quit work in 2001 - my employer was besotted with her. My father was one of Mosley's mob before the war and I truly hate them. Sorry if I caused offence, Psy. 12:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

None taken. And the fact that the AWB are about to knock on your front door, is just a horrible coincidence :) and proof there are still plenty of right-wing fuck heads around.--PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a nasty link! 12:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

All the South Africans I've ever met have been lovely. Except that Psy, he's a real arse - David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Shh! Don't tell you-know-who or he'll be round there before you can say Studs4U. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to stray from the topic at hand, but can I address the first sentence of the thread, and just say "huh?" DickTurpis (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Issit hey? You somer come here and tells that to me. I will frow you wif a stone sew blerrie hard and donder you sew fast you will scheme you're surrounded. This example of Seffricen was proudly brought to you by the Hendrik Verwoerd Humanitarian Trust

@ the Maurauder. Oh, he has uncapped 4Mb (which is super-fast for us 3rd types) connection, so we're basically downloading every series and movie ever made. Well not quite. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I've never met a nice South African. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually Genghis & Psy are right and you have based this on one South African you have meet in the last ten years? Ace^X-102 19:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That's 100% of the ones she's met! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound nasty but I am intimately involved with SA in that I am marrying into a South African family, have met and made many SA friends worldwide and have spent several months traveling in SA and, aside from a few very rare examples, each one has been nothing but fair, liberal and entirely horrified by their countries past behaviour. Ace^X-102 20:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Swine flu vaccine

It's causing narcolepsy. Is this news or did I miss this earlier? --85.77.220.201 (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

More lunacy predicted

I hereby bet 50 internets that within a week, CMI will have an article on this finding. Creationist moon mania is always fun. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I say the moon is shrinking because the annanaki controlled reptilians used satanic powers to put a black magic curse on it. Humans can't tell because we are EDUCATED STUPID. The "Lunar bombing" and "Large Hadron Collider" explanations are just cover ups invented by the One World Government --Onion <talk> 16:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, no: it's my conspiracy to monopolise the metal industry with iron from the Moon's core! Vonlebio (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"If the moon has been shrinking at this rate for the last billion years it would have disppeared long ago therefore the world is around 6000 years old.." or some such creationist woo. Ace^X-102 19:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't giggle, the moon is shrinking only because it's so cold. OMG THIS DISPROVES GLOBAL WARMING!!! Vulpius (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Gallup poll on paranormal belief among Americans

Here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/16915/three-four-americans-believe-paranormal.aspx There seems to be a steady increase in the belief in witches. --ZooGuard (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting analysis. Nice to see it broken down into individual beliefs. ^gnostic

So, statistically, at least 12% of Americans think that witches are real but channelling is complete rubbish. Evil cubic Hoover! 20:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Releasing this poll result now is a conspiracy to make those 20% of people who think Obama is a muslim look less stupid by comparison. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Bookmark for y'all

An all^(?)encompassing aggregator 10:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Outrage over plans to build library next to Sarah Palin 10:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The only "all encompassing aggregator" I know of is Wolfram Alpha. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 18:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck is sticking it to the man

See this, and wait till about the 50 second mark. What?

Quick poll - have any of you had a professor that has told you not to read something? Oh, and I think we all know what we're paying to go to college for: to get a few letters affixed to our names that will enable us to make twice as much money doing half as much work. Huzzah! PhillipA (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I just bought the Overton Window today. I must say, thus far I am quite satisfied. I haven't started reading but the hardcover edition makes punching Beck's smug face that much more enjoyable. The review should be up in about two weeks.--Thanatos (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure he meant this the way I heard it... "the end of slavery, which was a nightmare". ħuman 03:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotta hate those darn Liebural professors. I had one in college (for a frickin' SolidWorks course, nonetheless) who spent 90% of our non-instruction time (the time where we are actually doing assignments with SolidWorks, and not being given instructions by the instructor) talking to us about Jesus and how we should all become good Christians and go to church and listen to the local Christian (and incredibly right-wing) talk radio station and...... The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 19:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

School

is boring. Hmm, I think Ill sign up for Andys classes... (snickers). Ex-Troll Cheerleader^{I'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me} 03:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you think school's supposed to be, fun? At least it's boring for you only while it's in attendence - school is already casting its boring shadow over me before it even starts, as I have to read two books, one of which I have to annotate (as if that actually helps me learn), along with copying down 70 random mythology definitions before school gets in session. Blergh. Ah, wait, what am I kidding?! I should be thankful! I live in a great country founded by our great conservative fathers, where I get a free, good education to help me learn and apply myself in the future to this ever-changing world! Oh, wait, I go to a dreaded public school. Nevermind, I'm just going to be a dreaded baby-eating loony communist that ends up going to some liberal college that charges too much for its claptrap in which I end up supporting the terrorists in the end. Oh well. I'll use that as my reason for not reading the books. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I was being scarcastic. I couldnt be a cheerleader if I gave up public school for Andys classes. Ex-Troll Cheerleader^{I'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me} 03:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(but that doesnt mean I cant sign up as a parodist) Ex-Troll Cheerleader^{I'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me} 03:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I know, I was being sarcastic too - I never said you were serious. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

lol I should have known that. Its midnight here and Ive been up since early this morning so what can I say. Beer? Ex-Troll Cheerleader^{I'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me} 03:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Nahhhh, the bouncer's on to me ever since he overheard that idiot telling me that I shouldn't be in here due to my age. I've gotta lie low. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

My best friends facebook lists "making someones day" first on her "activities." Thats sweet and in a way an accurate description of both of us. For me, I like to make Andrew Schlaflys day if you know what I mean... Ex-Troll Cheerleader^{I'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me} 03:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I can only make one conclusion of what you mean by that, and quite frankly, I hope I'm wrong. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Having it again tonight!

She makes them chili for breakfast? What's wrong with that? ħuman 04:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, god, I would gouge my eyes out if it would help get that image out of my head. I'll just have to stare at Genghis' back garden for hours. Evil cubic Hoover! 10:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Free Sakineh

FWIW, here's an on-line petition to save that Iranian woman from being stoned to death. --PsyGremlinPrata! 20:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Mrs. Khant gave a considerable sum last week to have ads published in Brazil & Venezuela to put pressure on Lulu and Chavez. My own pet peeve at the moment is the apathy being shown to the flood victims in Pakistan. Heck, CP hasn't even offered any prayers let alone cash. I've mentioned it here before but it seems to get a resounding meh. I don't wish to downplay the plight of Sakineh but ultimately it is a political campaign over the life of one woman when thousands are at risk from starvation and disease elsewhere. By all means sign the petition (I already have done so) but try and spare some cash for the likes of dec.org.uk. It wouldn't hurt to forgo a couple of drinks in order to send some aid. Thank you for reading. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, JPratt. --PsyGremlinParla! 09:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: the flooding, isn't it millions in danger? Where's George Harrison when we need him?!? ħuman 01:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Millions are affected, how many will die is a different matter. Many of these people live in mudbrick houses so all though they can be rebuilt it will take time but they have probably lost most of their possessions including lifestock and food stores. They are not going to be able to replant and harvest their own food for the best part of a year. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, at any one time, somewhere in the world, someone will be in the shit. Sometimes hundreds, or thousands or millions will be in the shit. Some will be in more shit than others. It's too much for an indiviudal to take in. Not only do we have to content with our natural instinct about proximity and general salience, but the practicalities of news reporting that feeds us this information. There are people still suffering from disasters that happened months or years ago but we've all moved our attention on to the next big disaster and the next group of people. Is this fair, either? The floods in Pakistan aren't the first disaster this year and they won't be the last and the attention of the world will be forced to the next thing before this one has even properly finished, yet alone the recovery finished. It would be impossible to care for and give to every known and possible cause at every time. It might be cold, but sometimes you need to say "I don't have the capacity to think about that right now, I've picked my cause and this is the one I'm going to support" regardless of how tragic the latest seems to be - it'd be equally unfair for you to forget your previous charitable thoughts and move on. ^gnostic 14:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You know we're a bit late on this front. They've already decided they aren't going to stone her to death, they're going to hang her instead. This entire stupid campaign has been a disaster from start to finish. Concentrating on the stoning rather than the fact she's going to be put to death at all was a braindead strategy that has now predictably backfired. The woman is still going to die, and a perfectly good opportunity to highlight the idiocy of the death penalty has been lost. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Armond, that's one strong argument for broad-based relief agencies such as the Red Cross (one-stop donating; they stay on the job long after the news cycle is over, etc.) and equally broad-based, long-term international aid agencies funded directly by governments, who would, again, stay on the job whether it's still big in the news or not. ħuman 19:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's do both. I signed the petition (I'm skeptical of how much good clicktivism does, but it's not like it took me a lot of effort) AND I kicked in some money for the Pakistan relief effort. --Gulik (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Why RationalWIki?

I am trying to answer this question. Not because I think its hard to answer but because I want to articulate it better as part of a wider issue of branding.

My long version is currently morphing over here, and I have tried to distill it down here.

This is sort of a general call for feedback and thoughts if anyone is interested in this particular meta. tmtoulouse 06:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you think about it too much. But I will read the entire thing, I agree with more or less everything you've said in the parts that I've got up to. ^gnostic 14:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to think about anything, this is very fundamental. I'm working on an evaluation but computer overuse pain is getting to me again. This damn wiki is addictive enough! ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I find RW a retreat. I admit, we do little on a grand scal. But with the right becoming more radical, it is a breath of fresh air to come here. If we could do some systematic branching into other areas, i.e. movie, book reviews, real predictions on the near future of events etc, we might be able to do more and get more respect.--Thanatos (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the key way to get more respect is to become less about humor. I cite this and this as examples. A key way to get more respect is to more strictly define the boundaries between pages like WIGO talk and actual articles. To answer the original question, I'm here to expose myself to new ideas. RationalWiki is a good place for that, but people who are in the target audience might be turned off by the somewhat esoteric displays of humor in what would otherwise be simply informative articles. In some places [like, in my opinion, the CP Delusions article (I've tried to find sources for some of that stuff, and there just aren't any)], RW just seems immature and (might I say) irrational. I would change stuff like this in the articles, but (1) I don't think my opinion on the matter is the accepted rule here, and (2) It stems from the mindset of the users, so it doesn't get to the root of the problem. That's just my two cents as far as feedback and thoughts go. For the most part, I like it here. -- JArneal 00:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Graphic design help

Anyone here a bit handy with logo design who can give me a hand making a logo for an open source project? I will supply goat (and a link) in exchange. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've done a couple of logos before, but they were mainly a matter of rearranging preëxisting pictures. What is in mind? Evil cubic Hoover! 11:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Anything really. I had to rename a project I've been working on for ages, and now that my hosting company detroyed my website before I had a chance to move it to a new host I need to start from scratch. I'll drop you an email. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I made you a CrundySoft logo. Is good? 17:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we even need to vote? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't people maintain mirrors of their websites on their local drives? ħuman 19:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Because redundancy is supposed to be taken care of at the server level? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Nothing wrong with an extra, basically free, level of redundancy though. Wasn't it geocities that a year or two ago "deredundified" the sites they were hosting? ħuman 20:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There is certainly nothing wrong with doing the backup, I was just guessing as to why most people don't. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nutty: Love it. Must use it. As for backups, I do have most of the web files, but I've lost all my database backups for my support forums. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see crundy. My sites are all web -0.5 based. So, yeah, it's easy. Make files on my computer, upload them, instant local "backup" copy since it's the original. ħuman 04:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't be too bad but I reinstalled my laptop and work machine recently, so only have a few files left :( Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

As NR's logo was rather crude and offensive, I've tried something a little more professional and grown-up for you. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You guys would be quite useful if you weren't assholes :) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

An Intolerable Mistake on Hallowed Ground: Redux

No one is disputing that America stands for – and should stand for – religious tolerance. It is a foundation of our republic. This is not an issue of religious tolerance but of common moral sense. For Muslims to worship at the Pentagon is a stab in the heart of the families of the innocent victims of those horrific attacks. Just days after 9/11, plans were underway for a place to allow Islamic worship at the site of impact. Can you imagine the pain inflicted on those affected by this tragedy when they have to pass by Islamic worship in the very hall destroyed by these Islamists? Mr. President, should they or should they not worship Islam at the exact site where radical Islamists killed 184 people? We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? Why are they apparently so set on worshiping Islam at what you have described, in agreement with me, as "hallowed ground"? I believe these are legitimate questions to ask.

I'm calling on Sarah Palin (and conservative leaders in general) to ask Muslims not to worship at the Pentagon Chapel. Certainly not because it's the right thing to do, but because it's a logical extension of their argument and it sounds even more batshit insane. Have insane friends who believe this shit? Ask them what they think about this. 3 internets says they agree with this crap. Tell them to write to Palin or their kooky republican congressmen.

Distance from Ground Zero Mosque to tragedy	two blocks
Distance from Pentagon Chapel to tragedy	0
Outrage over Islamic worship on hallowed ground	two blocks divided by 0

Occasionaluse (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Click me! No further comment. Gmb (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I stopped reading when I got to "Spoiler alert: avoid the goat rhoti". Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotta love Gladstone. It's a pity HBN is no longer run by Cracked. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 20:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My faith in Cracked seems slightly restored with that! ^gnostic 17:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Brooker spot on as ever Jack Hughes (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Gay weather

I'd like to share this picture which I've just taken from the back of my house.

Now do you believe in Noah's Ark? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Awww, that's so pretty. ^_^ Thanks for making me smile --Onion <talk> 20:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Gay. Trees are touching. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You think the trees are gay? Look at all the grass, it's a massive orgy. ~SuperHamster Talk 21:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you live in a very nice place. Very homo. Ace^X-102 21:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The title was referring to the rainbows. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The complete lack of beautiful autumn foliage in the picture clearly indicates that you are an atheist, trying to push the homosexual agenda (noon: lunch break) down our throats. I shall now wash my eyes in bleach, to remove this impure image from my mind. Yours sincerely Ivor Bigbotty

You live in a beautifully gay part of the country. Looking out the back of my window all I can see is my small garden (in comparison to yours) a couple of trees, my garage, and then moar houses. SJ ^Debaser 10:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The rabbits are insufferable buggers so it does have its downside. Fortunately marauding does not rquire you to have a job close to your workplace. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful!! What lens? 10:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Its a Sony DSC-WX1 10 Mp compact which does panormas by moving the camera from left to right, you need to hold the camera vertical and then just pivot your body, I believe it is based on technology developed for movie cameras. It is a great little camera to keep with you at all times and has good low-light capabilities, the only downside is that it isn't as rugged as my Olympus μ850 which will withstand being dropped and can be used up to 3m underwater. I tend to reserve my DSLR for preplanned things. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I always wondered whether or not that camera actually makes good panoramas. Looks great to me - much easier than stitching, too. Is it able to produce higher-resolution/larger ones, or did you reduce its size? ~SuperHamster Talk 16:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

EC) Looks like a very nice machine. Unfortunately I've got a mental block on Sony stuff: always seems to be priced higher than the competition (although there doesn't seem to be any for this) Also the proprietary cards - I've already got three types. 16:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Panoramas are 1080x4912 pixels although you may not get all the width it depends on how fast you move the camera. There is a newer 12.2 Mp model which does 1080iHD video compared to mine at 720HD. So the panoramas may be bigger as well. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a beautifulicious bow of rain, and one hell of a view. Not to seem snipacious, did you also zoom out and get the whole thing as well? Here is what us kids had to do back when you digikids were still in school with our crappy 20kpixel cameras. My view away from the afternoon sun is not quite as photogenic as yours (it's really hard to shoot my 'bows without including electric wires and stuff), but the bows of rain are still obvious proof of... optics. ħuman 04:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You need quite a wide angle to get a whole rainbow. Unfortunately the sweep panorama uses a fixed focal length, it's the widest angle but crops top and bottom to smooth out the sweep. I did take a sequence of single shots which I will try and stitch but it's a bit of work matching the exposures - the Sony doesn't have a manual mode. Rainbows are ephemeral so I only had time to grab the nearest camera and take a few shots before the sun was obscured again. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Presumably rainbows would be about... 80° wide? That seems way too big, but these things tend to be deceptive. Evil cubic Hoover! 11:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

84° in total, so almost impossible to get in a single shot. This is because the refractions come out at between 40-42°, with the secondary band at 50° ish (and if you look carefully, you can see the secondary one is reversed, which is pretty cool). It's also a really nice shot of Alexander's band, which according to a BBC Learning documentary is apparently a mystery (although I may have misremembered...) but I think it's quite clear from this shot that it's not the band that is darker but the inside of the primary bow that's lightened. (and Wikipedia agrees) ^gnostic 09:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely if it's 84° in total, it should be almost impossible to capture without noticeable distortion of perspective? Evil cubic Hoover! 15:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the sweep panorama works by taking the centre section from a continous sequence of images so wouldn't be affected by perspective unless you tilted the camera. Also as a rainbow is a circle that exists only from the point of view of the observer surely it would not be affected by perspective. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

True, but so would everything else. But it doesn't look particularly distorted. Evil cubic Hoover! 16:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Competitively:

taken about 200 yards from home on Sunday. (reduced vastly and cropped [not 'shopped]) 14:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My friends approve of my alt-med binge

"These are, in fact, brains." - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear me. My psychic intuition has told me what my next article is - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Phone sex is your next article? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 19:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Your articles? Your? You can't write articles here, you can only start them, wannabe. --Idiot number 58 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a companion volume aimed at men? I'm sure it would be a best seller. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Except that in their case they could use 95% of their brains (I'm being generous).  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Was that supposed to be funny? Evil cubic Hoover! 19:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hil-aaaa-rious - David Gerard (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

FFS guys, am I supposed to add winking smilies to everything I post?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose breast size - and everything else for that matter - and mental capacity are slightly related due to the nature of self-perception. You'd just end up with someone with severe body dismorphia, albeit in a "positive" direction (I put "positive" in quotes as whether it is or not is fairly subjective). And this is quite a real effect, if only to the individual themselves. ^gnostic 09:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In my imagination, not only is my penis seventeen feet long, but my lover's breasts are largely made of gunpowder. ħuman 10:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeing "these are, in fact, brains" next to the pic of frozen ziplock thing in pot, confirmed suspicions that this Gerard fellow is brain eating zombie. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Another way to make RW more open

A while ago MediaWiki split the rights of delete/undelete into three part, delete, undelete and view deleted pages. I was wondering if we should give autoconfirmed editors the ability to view deleted pages so that people can see what it is a sysop has deleted. - π 23:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a brilliant idea. --Onion <talk> 23:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Does that include viewing deleted revisions? If not, then I support this endeavor. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Meh. I can take it or leave it. RW is pretty damn open, so I don't think it's a big issue. Sort of reminds me of the concerns of Tony "You know what Conservapedia's real problem is? They don't allow unregistered editing!" Sidaway. DickTurpis (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be done because there's no reason not to do it. Theemperor: Revisions that are deleted via oversight are not going to be visible because that's just plain obvious. --Onion <talk> 03:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. But also pointless. ħuman 04:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Human is right. Much of RW is fine but so damned pointless and boring. --Idiot number 58 (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately it's pointless. 90% of deleted articles are due to spam, and are uninteresting. Those that are contentious have the talk page to show reasoning - and are still accessible to all. Anyone interested in RW will become a user, will probably make more than 6 edits and will therefore become a sysop; so can view them anyway. Indeed, sysop rights are so easy that it's slowly becoming the norm for people to be 'sopped before they're autoconfirmed. Ultimately the exercise will be quite pointless and probably not worth the time it's taken this short discussion to evolve. ^gnostic 09:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It makes one wonder what's the point in deleting anything then if virtually anyone can see it.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the point is that it removes it from the search and dpl capacity, as well as the internal linking system so the page essentially "disappears" from the normal workings of the wiki - although the info is still there. It means you have to actively go out of your way to find the deleted stuff, and this aspect wouldn't change either with or without the above suggestion. ^gnostic 09:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Further, this means there is a difference between "deletion" and "hiding". Deletion hides things from the majority of potential editors but from practically no current or active editors, which I think is fine enough, the barrier to seeing deleted content is extremely low and it's not as if the wiki has much to hide in this respect. "Hiding" would then be the full on revision delete that we do for privacy protection, the barrier for viewing this info is higher, but not insurmountable, but the information being restricted is being actively restricted for a reason, rather than just being removed from the database so dpl templates and categories aren't filled with unwanted pages. ^gnostic 09:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sysop powers are handed out like candy. Anyone who doesn't get them, there's good reason. As Armondikov points out, there's not much reason to bother with this - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Anyone who doesn't get them, there's good reason" - more likely that they're just wearing the wrong socks.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I like Pi's liberating idea. Then we could advertise by saying "registering allows you see all the things we don't want you to see". ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Another way to make RW more open

An even more liberating idea would be to hide things in such a way that any reader could click to read them. There is a way to do this at RW, [it is called RationalWiki:Collapsible_Comment_System ]but I lost the page. That way, any reader who wants to investigate, can opt-in and the rest of us can admire a tidy blue box with pet troll safely contained. (At least for some of those gray trollish comments that we can't all agree to delete.) The box would just have the troll's initials and use "s" as shorthand for suspect, like "MC S" is "MarcusCicero suspect" or maybe label them after the crime like "stoopid", "nonsense", "annoying", "hate", etc, then we sign name so reader know decision made by righteous judge and choose not open box. Call this the "open box policy", meaning don't open that box. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine for talk pages, but it doesn't address deleted articles. ħuman 02:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

True. To allow any reader to see deleted pages we might move it to the creator's userspace, update the links to the moved page, but put the links in the boxes! That is, if we want more "openness" (inclusiveness) while empowering readers with boxes so they don't inadvertently read something frustrating/etc.

Do you know the page that shows you how to make those hide boxes?

I'd like to know what it would do to the table of contents if you put multiple sections in the hide box. ~ Lumenos (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea, at least for single-author deleted articles. Put the link on the talk page, copy content to user sub page. No collapsible boxes needed. I suspect the template is something like "collapse" "/collapse". Go to the giant template list via the help link and search for "collapse"? ħuman 03:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Here it is, the RationalWiki:Collapsible_Comment_System. Allow me to demonstrate:

This is a collapsed comment
You fagots don't understand. Human in dress looks like caveman Pink pumps Heals look fat. Walks bull-legged. I will fart on your grave ...while praying for your soul.

Moaron hidebox

Interesting, so sections show up in the TOC but are still hidden. Clicking these sections will only jump to the section if the "comment" is uncollapsed. I find I can put images in the hidebox. I can't put words on the collapsed hidebox so descriptions must go outside. Uncollapsed it would not display anything when I was trying to put the whole Chicken Coop page in the hidebox. ~ Lumenos (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)