RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive78
Pumpkin[edit]
Well, almost that time of year again when one shuts the curtains, turns off the lights, and hides in a corner until the extortionist chavs armed with eggs fuck off, so I thought I'd post some pumpkin portaits from The Pumpkin Geek, such as Harry Potter, Whoopie Goldberg, and the very bonable Jeri Ryan (aka Seven of Nine). CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I really want to get some pumpkins now... I have a major Halloween party coming up and carving a few things like that would boost my artsy cred no problem!
d hominem 22:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, me too. Now all I need is some artistic talent... CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I just died a little inside when I read the website more closely (duh!) and found out they weren't real pumpkins! Although apparently it is still possible on real ones, they just die and rot after a week or so. d hominem 21:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I just died a little inside when I read the website more closely (duh!) and found out they weren't real pumpkins! Although apparently it is still possible on real ones, they just die and rot after a week or so.
- Yeah, me too. Now all I need is some artistic talent... CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Idea for a Conservapedia Deletionpedia[edit]
It could counter the record destroying going on at Conservapedia. People would compare existing edits in CP, to the CP-DP wiki, for the latter to gain credibility as a mirror (or fork), and then all the many detractors here, in Uncyclopedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, EoS, etc, can use it as a reference in their mocking.
Let’s say that there are 200 edits on Conservapedia a day, and that it takes 54 seconds each to copy them. Such could likely be even done done in less than 2 hours.Civic Cat (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON ABOUT? 20:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ever heard of Deletionpedia?Civic Cat (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- There's nothing to stop you doing it if you want but littering a dozen subheads here ain't gonna win you fans . What you're saying is "I've got an idea, all I need is some mugs to make it happen, instead of doing the work myself" Isn't it? 20:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed the subheadings. If what they said is worth repeating, please post it again as text, not headings. Subheadings on talk/discussion pages are for when a discussion gets long enough or forked enough to be subsectioned, not for spamming your brainfarts across the page in bold. Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, Weaseloid, brainfarts. :-/
I was attempting a point by point thing. Sorry you all got bothered;
and no it wasn't so much a recruitment for activists, but ideas. After all, I never ran a wiki, and my idea would be the ultimate WIGO-of-sorts. Whatever links are cited on your page could go to stuff removed, but not in CP-DP. Now if you think it's a stupid idea, say so and tell me why; if you have helpful hints, it would be appreciated.Civic Cat (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)- It's a stupid idea - there's not enuff deletion actually goin' on to warrant it. Even if there was(were?) it'd be of interest to a very small number of people. No-one here had run a wiki 'til they started. 21:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- So you're telling me that there is little deletion going on at CP?Civic Cat (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- "No-one here had run a wiki 'til they started," and I suppose they did it without helpful hints. Huh? (I'll be back in a day or two.) :-/ Civic Cat (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Consider my breath held. 21:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 09:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Consider my breath held. 21:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- At the moment, that is so. What has been deleted is mostly parodist's work or maths stuff that Ed couldn't understand or talk page comments. 21:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- "No-one here had run a wiki 'til they started," and I suppose they did it without helpful hints. Huh? (I'll be back in a day or two.) :-/ Civic Cat (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- So you're telling me that there is little deletion going on at CP?Civic Cat (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's a stupid idea - there's not enuff deletion actually goin' on to warrant it. Even if there was(were?) it'd be of interest to a very small number of people. No-one here had run a wiki 'til they started. 21:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, Weaseloid, brainfarts. :-/
- I've removed the subheadings. If what they said is worth repeating, please post it again as text, not headings. Subheadings on talk/discussion pages are for when a discussion gets long enough or forked enough to be subsectioned, not for spamming your brainfarts across the page in bold. Wēāŝēīōīď
- There's nothing to stop you doing it if you want but littering a dozen subheads here ain't gonna win you fans . What you're saying is "I've got an idea, all I need is some mugs to make it happen, instead of doing the work myself" Isn't it? 20:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ever heard of Deletionpedia?Civic Cat (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Surprised nobody explained capturebot to the civet. Also, why is this in the SB instead of talk wigo cp? ħuman
00:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
This would have been a pretty good idea 3½ years ago, but it's way to late now. --Onion <talk> 00:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think creating a mirror CP would be a little overobsessive & of very little value. There are enough people watching CP that anything interesting will be WIGOed, but recording deleted matter at another site just for it's own sake seems a little pointless. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 09:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Plus, we already have Capturebot. --Onion <talk> 02:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Bah! And so forth.......[edit]
Urgh, this rolling belly and steamy head. Once so full of big ideas and joy, now a shadowy husk of nausea and anger. Sitting in some low life burger joint at 4am ignoring the pulling teeth and clamoring monkey on my shoulder which demands booze, pills, action and excitement. Bah, ignore the awful filthy simian. Let it yell, it'll bring no pleasure to listen to it. My useless cellphone lies smashed and mangled in the corner of the room with a knife jutting out from its nether regions. It failed me for the last time and now, like myself, it is broken and fucked. A warning to all phones that come after it - this'll happen to you if you don't behave fuck face. I am capable of all types of horrors. Jesus, I feel like a Nazi. Lucky my fiancee is sleeping off her hangover, being only 10:31am I could be an alligator at this hour and in this state. Head in vice, bank balance in ruins and going to trial on Wednesday. All that come to me today will be judged on the harshest of merits.
Ho ho ho, where will you be for the killing?
All it will take is for some stand-up-straight citizen dressed in tweed and argyle to get in my way today and I'll unleash a torrent of abuse and foaming mouth. A rabid animal just trying to get from A to B while trying to avoid interjections from the world at large. I have giant fucking machete and I'll use it.
Who's first then eh? i9 21:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you are writing a novel, I am already hooked--Thanatos (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I must commandeer fiancee's I-phone and make many calls to many people - can't let the facts escape me. Not at this juncture anyway, if I called the right people I'll get the answers I need. Oh god, this painful gibberish falling from my mouth. No whisky in the house. My needs as of yet unfulfilled. i9 21:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have made several calls to the right people and now my day takes shape. it is not going to be a good one mind you. Oh no, many chores and bad noises await me. But I must face facts and cash my cheque. My fate awaits and while formless and nebulus at this stage the evil fucker will appear in some form later this morning. But, the calls. "We must have action" I say into the electric doughnut, "how many beers in the fridge?"
- The answer, not unexpected, was "there is no fridge".
- Well, I'll get some beer on the way. Facing the gray sky with a lack of alcohol blood is more than one can handle.
- If you were in my shoes, you'd feel the same. i9 22:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ace, you really really REALLY should write a novel. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I must commandeer fiancee's I-phone and make many calls to many people - can't let the facts escape me. Not at this juncture anyway, if I called the right people I'll get the answers I need. Oh god, this painful gibberish falling from my mouth. No whisky in the house. My needs as of yet unfulfilled. i9 21:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Just going for a walk...[edit]
I have a great deal of trouble sleeping, so I often go for a wonder in the early hours of the morning. London at 4 in the morning is pretty amazing with no folk about--AMassiveGay (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- All my favorite films involves scenes in London at 4 AM. ħuman 02:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeh? I love London. Seriously though, everyone should wonder about wherever they live at this time - it gives a whole new perspecive on things. I seem to have spent most of myself out a this time. I find it very theraputic--AMassiveGay (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- This was widely reported last week; so make it a regular event and it will improve your old age. Lily Inspirate me. 09:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- London at night... I was in the East End last weekend and I felt safer walking through the streets at night than in Torquay. It was just full of people doing their thing, going out etc, whereas Torquay on a Saturday night is a mob of lairy pissheads on stag do's. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hah! Torquay: you wanna try Worksop!!! 14:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was in London recently doing some work as a film extra, which involved a very early start. Walking across Waterloo Bridge at 4am & admiring the view across the Thames to St Pauls & the City was pretty cool. Rest of the day was pretty cool too. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 16:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- The south bank is rather jolly without hordes of tourists cluttering the place up.--AMassiveGay (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was in London recently doing some work as a film extra, which involved a very early start. Walking across Waterloo Bridge at 4am & admiring the view across the Thames to St Pauls & the City was pretty cool. Rest of the day was pretty cool too. Wēāŝēīōīď
- Hah! Torquay: you wanna try Worksop!!! 14:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- London at night... I was in the East End last weekend and I felt safer walking through the streets at night than in Torquay. It was just full of people doing their thing, going out etc, whereas Torquay on a Saturday night is a mob of lairy pissheads on stag do's. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- This was widely reported last week; so make it a regular event and it will improve your old age. Lily Inspirate me. 09:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeh? I love London. Seriously though, everyone should wonder about wherever they live at this time - it gives a whole new perspecive on things. I seem to have spent most of myself out a this time. I find it very theraputic--AMassiveGay (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Most of relativity is metaphysics, or so I have heard...[edit]
Looks like either CP have spread the word, or they simply aren't alone...
Source article in Chinese (No, they don't have an English version)
Bonus lulz if anyone manages to get Andy to contact the author of the article. (Feel free to move it to WIGO talk:CP if it is better there) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
lol, the best part was when i translated it from Babelfish and didn't realize whether it was Chinese traditional or simplified;
"to choke the wind neck", "brushes off smelly tu", "the stuffed dumpling stool to scoop up the bait"
ah, the wonders of basic translators.HKJGN (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Well I was searching for some car stuff...[edit]
OK, it has to do with TK, but it doesn't belong in the CP WIGO. I was just looking around on the Edmonds Car Blogs, and I ran into this...http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f0faadc/32#MSG32 I was surprised really, but then looking at a few other of his posts/etc it becomes clear he's really TK. Guess this is one of the few places where he's actually fair and honest...funny, isn't it?RascalJack (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose he needs somewhere to take a break from being a prick someplace--AMassiveGay (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I love how the utter misuse/abuse of commas would have told me who it was even without any clues (like your post and his username). ħuman 02:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is old news. An much earlier online search brought up a quote about Terry Koeckritz being a "consultant who monitors used car prices". That now seems to have disappeared but I found this which is in a similar vein. Oh, and terry92270 is a user name and email address from when 92270 was his ZIP code. Lily Inspirate me. 09:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I love how the utter misuse/abuse of commas would have told me who it was even without any clues (like your post and his username). ħuman
The mousetrap...[edit]
...just went off behind my back, while I was reverting some tripe. Now I have to throw a twitching mouse out the door as their brain stops communicating with their heart and stuff. A least, I hope I murdered a mowse! I might not report on the relative level of success when I hit "save" and check the trap. ħuman 06:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- OH FUCK IT WAS A LIZARD WITH YELLOW SPOTS GROSSSSS GROSSSS EWWWWWWWWWWWWW! ħuman 06:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why don't you just get a cat to do your murdering for you? It doesn't even require orders, so there's plausible deniability. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- A lizard wanted your cheese? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 11:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I use a bit of a nacho chip; I've discovered that cheese doesn't work. ħuman 23:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I use a bit of a nacho chip; I've discovered that cheese doesn't work. ħuman
- Cats are worse pest controllers, because they come and present their work to you and get offended when you express disgust at their offerings. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Depends. The stables next door to us got three cats and the mice and rats decided to go elsewhere. I think I read that the mere smell of cat is a deterrent. Or perhaps it was cat urine - which may not be such a problem in a stables but could cause problems in a more domestic setting.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have been plagued by rabbits and have a humane trap to catch the little blighters. Last weekend I discovered that I'd caught a great big black and white cat.
ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 18:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have been plagued by rabbits and have a humane trap to catch the little blighters. Last weekend I discovered that I'd caught a great big black and white cat.
- Depends. The stables next door to us got three cats and the mice and rats decided to go elsewhere. I think I read that the mere smell of cat is a deterrent. Or perhaps it was cat urine - which may not be such a problem in a stables but could cause problems in a more domestic setting.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- A lizard wanted your cheese? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 11:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why don't you just get a cat to do your murdering for you? It doesn't even require orders, so there's plausible deniability. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Choose your poison... WITH SCIENCE![edit]
nicked from here. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ooh, that guy again. Last thing we cribbed from him was like a guide to our site, IIRC. ħuman 09:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's very good!--BobSpring is sprung! 12:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Funny! Totnesmartin (talk) (mystical hand waver) 16:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- F**king immense. d hominem 20:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- F**king immense.
- Funny! Totnesmartin (talk) (mystical hand waver) 16:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's very good!--BobSpring is sprung! 12:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Math help[edit]
Okay there has to be an easy way to do this but I am drawing a blank. I am hoping its a combination of a new cold+not sleeping+readily available codeine cough syrup, and someone here can help me out. Here is the problem:
An individual is making a decision between two options A and B. Said individual will make this choice 30 times. I wish to measure the change in frequency at which A is being chosen with in the 30 trials. Basically I want to be able to tell the difference between someone who increased the frequency at which they chose option A over time, versus someone who chose B at first then decided to change to A and stick with it.
My plan was to calculate the percent time that A was chosen out of all the options chosen up till a given trial number, and to plot that over time, thinking that the slope of that line would correspond to change in frequency? But now I have gone and confused myself. tmtoulouse 20:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- What about looking at a sort-of rolling average? Say, the % A is chosen over B over a course of 5 decisions. Then you can see any real ups and downs over the course of the trial, rather than before/after an arbitrary point. Other than that, I'm not convinced I know what you're looking for. d hominem 20:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am looking for the change in frequency over time of choosing option A. At the moment I have a graph that shows the frequency at which A has been chosen at each trial number, so if I took the delta between each two sets of points and plotted the delta wouldn't that correspond to a graph of the change in frequency over time? I think it would...unless there is something better....maybe I could try a nap. tmtoulouse 20:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I guess if you want a nice quantisation of some sort of average "confidence over time" measure, try assigning the value +1 to choice A and -1 to choice B and then graphing the cumulative score over all the trials, zeroing the score whenever the respondent switches between A and B. Then to get a measure of confidence over a certain range (say, trials 5-12) then you can take the integral between those two values and average them with other respondents. Over the whole range, a totally confident person would achieve a maximal score, while a random strategy would net a score of zero. You could compare the integral of the whole (which might be zero if they chose A for the first 15 trials, and B thereafter) with the integral of some part (which might be maximal if they were totally confident for that part.) --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- These sound reasonable to me... if you want some sort of p-value out of this the associated probabilities for a (biased) random walk should be pretty easy to compute, so you can compare things like the integrals Jeeves suggests to what's expected of those integrals for a random walk that chooses + or - with a probability that doesn't change. Probably the statistics guys have come up with something better than that... --MarkGall (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think you want the derivative, not the integral. Do the +1/-1 thing, and just accumulate on a graph, the nice thing here is that at each point the derivative is either 1 or -1 as well... whoa, the same as the last pick... so that doesn't do anything useful... wouldn't it be enough to just add up the first 15 and compare to the last 15? ħuman 22:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have some actual data we can muck about with? ħuman 22:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think you want the derivative, not the integral. Do the +1/-1 thing, and just accumulate on a graph, the nice thing here is that at each point the derivative is either 1 or -1 as well... whoa, the same as the last pick... so that doesn't do anything useful... wouldn't it be enough to just add up the first 15 and compare to the last 15? ħuman
- These sound reasonable to me... if you want some sort of p-value out of this the associated probabilities for a (biased) random walk should be pretty easy to compute, so you can compare things like the integrals Jeeves suggests to what's expected of those integrals for a random walk that chooses + or - with a probability that doesn't change. Probably the statistics guys have come up with something better than that... --MarkGall (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I guess if you want a nice quantisation of some sort of average "confidence over time" measure, try assigning the value +1 to choice A and -1 to choice B and then graphing the cumulative score over all the trials, zeroing the score whenever the respondent switches between A and B. Then to get a measure of confidence over a certain range (say, trials 5-12) then you can take the integral between those two values and average them with other respondents. Over the whole range, a totally confident person would achieve a maximal score, while a random strategy would net a score of zero. You could compare the integral of the whole (which might be zero if they chose A for the first 15 trials, and B thereafter) with the integral of some part (which might be maximal if they were totally confident for that part.) --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am looking for the change in frequency over time of choosing option A. At the moment I have a graph that shows the frequency at which A has been chosen at each trial number, so if I took the delta between each two sets of points and plotted the delta wouldn't that correspond to a graph of the change in frequency over time? I think it would...unless there is something better....maybe I could try a nap. tmtoulouse 20:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The way I was thinking of it is this: plot the total number of A's vs number of trials. Connect the first point and the last point with a straight line: this is roughly the graph you'd get if the rate of As and Bs is constant. If you started off guessing fewer A's, then your graph is going to be lie under the straight line before finally catching up to the average. One way to say "how far under" you were over the course of the experiment (which is supposed to measure to what extent you started guessing more As) is to literally compute the area between the graph of your data and the line as the integral of the difference. It shouldn't be very hard to find the expected distribution of this integral where we use a biased random walk with the same overall proportions of As and Bs (choose the + and - randomly), so then you just check where you are compared to that distribution to see whether you had significantly more initial As. But as Human points out, this integral doesn't seem like a very natural thing to consider, even if in general terms it should tell us what we want. I expect there's a more systematic way to go about it, but my statistics knowledge ends with high school. --MarkGall (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the ideas guys, it will give me some options to play with. As far as data, I can supply you data, though the raw data is likely very cumbersome to work with. Human, or anyone else, that wants to play with it just let me know what you would want. The raw data is literally trial-by-trail what option they picked and which options was "correct." I have a ton of automated post-procesing that I can do to make it look like whatever you want (percentage, the +1,-1, etc.). tmtoulouse 00:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Is there some non-parametric statistic or hypothesis test that would do that? sterile Etch-a-Sketch 01:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC) ADD: Related to Human's suggestion A=1, and B=0, and take the cumulative sum as you go along. Then, if you plot that, you get a change in slope as the frequency changes. sterile Etch-a-Sketch 01:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- How about a hypothesis test for difference between proportions? sterile Etch-a-Sketch 01:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The Tories vs. the Republicans[edit]
For those interested, I found this article comparing the British Tories to the American Republicans to be quite an interesting read. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 20:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- While accepting that to an American they might sound sweet, to a lefty Brit the're so far right they make Hitler look soft. 21:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah. I guess my point was that the American teabagger right is so insane, they make the Tories look like Ghandi by comparison. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 21:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Even as a left Brit you have to admit that the Conservatives are practical as well as following to more conservative/right ideology. With Republicans, you can see it's just rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric and that no amount of evidence, good sense or decency will make them doing anything even vaguely left-wing or liberal - because they're mostly driven not by "being conservative" but by "not being Liberal". d hominem 22:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I couldn't get too far in that article after it described George Osborne as someone that American politicians should aspire to be. Honestly, I look at that man and I see about the same level of intelligence and empathy that I see in a cow, who's most complex thought is "which clod of grass to chew on next," followed by "yum," followed by, "oh look, I've just shat a great big pile of turd." Yep, I'm not a fan of George Osborne Bondurant (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Which tories where being refered to? the tories known as Conservatives or the tories known as Labour? We haven't had a proper labour party for years--AMassiveGay (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- & We haven't had a proper Whig party for centuries. Bring back the Whigs! WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 12:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's ages since we had a proper toga party. Lily Inspirate me. 09:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Speak for yourself! 09:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Speak for yourself! 09:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's ages since we had a proper toga party. Lily Inspirate me. 09:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- & We haven't had a proper Whig party for centuries. Bring back the Whigs! Wēāŝēīōīď
- Which tories where being refered to? the tories known as Conservatives or the tories known as Labour? We haven't had a proper labour party for years--AMassiveGay (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I couldn't get too far in that article after it described George Osborne as someone that American politicians should aspire to be. Honestly, I look at that man and I see about the same level of intelligence and empathy that I see in a cow, who's most complex thought is "which clod of grass to chew on next," followed by "yum," followed by, "oh look, I've just shat a great big pile of turd." Yep, I'm not a fan of George Osborne Bondurant (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Even as a left Brit you have to admit that the Conservatives are practical as well as following to more conservative/right ideology. With Republicans, you can see it's just rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric and that no amount of evidence, good sense or decency will make them doing anything even vaguely left-wing or liberal - because they're mostly driven not by "being conservative" but by "not being Liberal".
- Yeah. I guess my point was that the American teabagger right is so insane, they make the Tories look like Ghandi by comparison. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 21:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The new RW comics![edit]
http://ratwiki.smackjeeves.com/ Yes, this is the new RW comics. Check it out! BTW, I'm soon gonna make a page for this, so stay tuned for some spoilers.RascalJack (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I hate to be a wet blanket, but RationalWiki is a trademark of the RationalWiki Foundation, and the brains in brackets logo is copyrighted and you do not have permission to use it. You are not entitled to use either for a personal project not sanctioned by the RWF. Please cease and desist immediately. ħuman 07:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- They used the old logo though, which is cc-by-sa -- Nx / talk 08:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- No it wasn't, except by accident. They are impersonating us, and that is a criminal act. ħuman 08:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, I'm just being pedantic. -- Nx / talk 08:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Pedantic is important here, since it is the law. ħuman 08:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- This might well be a great new idea - but it's something which should be discussed and approved here before our name is put on it.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- In the absence of such discussion, they are breaking the law. Also, it looks like CP-centric shit. ħuman 10:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually referring to the content - yes, it is more about CP than RW.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Can't see this having legs. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- When all you have is rationalwiki, .. --85.76.124.93 (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- If the site is still using our name and logo in 48 hours I will be talking to a very smart lawyer about it. ħuman 10:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- A. L. Schlafly Esq. could always do with some extra paid work. Sorry, no pro bono but he does specialise in copyright infringement. Lily Inspirate me. 10:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I thought Human was overreacting, but now that I've actually read the comic... ugh. -- Nx / talk 10:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's a very poor comic and there's no way "fair use" applies to it since the sole purpose of the RW logo seems to be to make the comic appear to be associated with this site. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, it's onnnnnn! SJ Debaser 10:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Quality is irrelevant, actually. Intellectual property that we own is all that matters here. ħuman 11:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's been dumped.RascalJack (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Too late to see it! Anyone copied a copy? InternetGoomba (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- You've folded after only four hours of legal threats and general criticism? Jeez... SJ Debaser 16:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Clearly, someone called the FBI. Was this a Karajou production or something? Anyone have a screencap? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- The cartoon itelf, IIRC, was not an issue. The issue was that the site linked above was using the RW logo (and name) to identify itself. Maybe Jack will post the 'toon somewhere people can continue to enjoy it? ħuman 20:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- The cartoon itelf, IIRC, was not an issue. The issue was that the site linked above was using the RW logo (and name) to identify itself. Maybe Jack will post the 'toon somewhere people can continue to enjoy it? ħuman
- Clearly, someone called the FBI. Was this a Karajou production or something? Anyone have a screencap? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- You've folded after only four hours of legal threats and general criticism? Jeez... SJ Debaser 16:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Too late to see it! Anyone copied a copy? InternetGoomba (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's been dumped.RascalJack (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Quality is irrelevant, actually. Intellectual property that we own is all that matters here. ħuman
- Oh, it's onnnnnn! SJ Debaser 10:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's a very poor comic and there's no way "fair use" applies to it since the sole purpose of the RW logo seems to be to make the comic appear to be associated with this site. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- If the site is still using our name and logo in 48 hours I will be talking to a very smart lawyer about it. ħuman
- When all you have is rationalwiki, .. --85.76.124.93 (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- In the absence of such discussion, they are breaking the law. Also, it looks like CP-centric shit. ħuman
- This might well be a great new idea - but it's something which should be discussed and approved here before our name is put on it.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Pedantic is important here, since it is the law. ħuman
- I don't disagree, I'm just being pedantic. -- Nx / talk 08:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- No it wasn't, except by accident. They are impersonating us, and that is a criminal act. ħuman
- They used the old logo though, which is cc-by-sa -- Nx / talk 08:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to follow up, the Foundation must vigilantly police unauthorized uses of its trade name, goodwill, and various trademarks and copyrights, including the RationalWiki brain logo. Failure to do so could result in the RWF being deemed to have acquiesced to future infringing uses, which would obviously make it difficult for RWF to control use of its own intellectual property.
To be clear, it's not personal, RascalJack, and I do thank you for taking it down. We're just doing what we have to. If you want to officially request permission from the foundation to use its name and mark you need to send an email to foundation@rationalwiki.org so that the officers can discuss licensing at our next meeting or maybe even before. I’m sorry we haven’t gotten to that yet. There’s been a lot to get done and we only have a few heads and so much time.
In the near term we'll be putting up a legal FAQ that will address issues like this. In the context of trademark/copyright/service mark/goodwill/trade name infringement, it will simply restate the position that's already clearly stated: no reuse or derivative works without permission. Various open source licenses cover a good amount of site content, though that is obviously not true of all site content, including but not limited to http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Rw_logo.png.
I know what some of you are thinking: this legalistic gloss and layer of bureaucracy seems pretty unfamiliar here; but even without RW's move to have a shiny new legal existence as a corporation, Trent was the previous owner of the logo and RW name and would have been the one to address any unauthorized uses of his intellectual property in order to protect the site. The only difference now is who's enforcing RW’s rights - the Board of Trustees of The RationalWiki Foundation, Inc.. Now, back to your regularly scheduled hangovers. ħuman 20:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I understand. Now if you want to do a CP comic, I do have a pose for TK. Don't blame me or RatWiki tho if something happens with Andy. But, if you do want to see it, I can easily cut out the logo and upload it here.RascalJack (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- It seemed more CP than RW. Why not re-create it as "The truss-worthy history of hubris" or something like that. ("Truss-worthy" being one of the early misspellings on CP).--BobSpring is sprung! 21:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- All right then, I'll post some season spoilers of "The Trussworthey Land of CP" on RW soon. Stay tuned.RascalJack (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I imagine it would be reasonably fine if it was hosted here. But if it's entirely Conservapedia centric, there's little point. Although I didn't see it, too slow. d hominem 22:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- How about this, I give you the comic with all CP/RW logos and RW name removed, and you guys continue it as some fun comic or something, if you want.RascalJack (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you put it up at RationalWiki in either fun-space, essay-space or your own namespace, it should be OK (see Help:Namespace for guidance). Putting anything up offsite with a perceived connection to RationalWiki is a lot more controversial, even without the copyright infringements. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 17:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you put it up at RationalWiki in either fun-space, essay-space or your own namespace, it should be OK (see Help:Namespace for guidance). Putting anything up offsite with a perceived connection to RationalWiki is a lot more controversial, even without the copyright infringements. Wēāŝēīōīď
- How about this, I give you the comic with all CP/RW logos and RW name removed, and you guys continue it as some fun comic or something, if you want.RascalJack (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I imagine it would be reasonably fine if it was hosted here. But if it's entirely Conservapedia centric, there's little point. Although I didn't see it, too slow.
- All right then, I'll post some season spoilers of "The Trussworthey Land of CP" on RW soon. Stay tuned.RascalJack (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- It seemed more CP than RW. Why not re-create it as "The truss-worthy history of hubris" or something like that. ("Truss-worthy" being one of the early misspellings on CP).--BobSpring is sprung! 21:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Digg Patriots Redux[edit]
Great (long!) post on News Junkie Post - naming and shaming those involved (with a special mention for our own Terry Hurlbutt) (more DP stuff here)--PsyGremlinTal! 11:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Goats[edit]
And more goats Sen (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I approve of these goats. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 17:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- So, you're saying that a good weapon for getting over high, steep walls would be a goat stuffed with explosives? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 19:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- How the heck do they do that?? That's incredible. Tetronian you're clueless 20:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also, however: Goat kills Hiker Hat tip 08:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also, however: Goat kills Hiker Hat tip 08:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- How the heck do they do that?? That's incredible. Tetronian you're clueless 20:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- So, you're saying that a good weapon for getting over high, steep walls would be a goat stuffed with explosives? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 19:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Rhubarb Rhubarb[edit]
I am eating rhubarb crumble! That is all! Except for the custard, of course. 16:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Dinner Club? Lily Inspirate me. 16:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ooh! Am jealous... my rhubarb's not ripe yet. Had to settle for choccie ice cream after my usual Monday bubble 'n' squeak. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 16:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not a cook - don't like cooking - but love eating. (I'm still trying to put weight on so no bothers there. I'm up to 50kg!) 17:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have the opposite problem - In the last few months I've developed a fairly decent spare tyre, and put it down to middle age spread. Until I read the leaflet with my meds - "may cause weight gain." Grumble. --PsyGremlinParlez! 17:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- There's an old thing: "when they do to forty come / men run to belly and women to bum". I'm definitely not putting it on my tum & disinterested view which I have just canvassed says my bum could do with a bit more meat on it so I don't know where it's goin' 17:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- My chef also makes ice cream to her own recipe - she calls me "litremouth" 'cause I wolf it down like nothing - she daren't leave the dish on the table until she's got hers. 17:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I tried making American pancakes today. Didn't work very well. Maybe it would help if I actually used the proper implements instead of a fork, a mug and my eye for measurements. I mean, it looked like 100g of flour to me. EddyP (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- You don't really measure for pancakes, just add flour until the mixture feels right. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- FFS you can't make American pancakes with something like 100g of flour, you have to use cups! (DD or bigger.) ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 18:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- That is correct, Americans measure ingredients by volume, not weight. We used to have something in the UK that resembled US pancakes, by the way, but my memory of what we called them is unspellable. Anyway, yeah, just make a thick batter and throw it on the griddle. ħuman 20:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- That is correct, Americans measure ingredients by volume, not weight. We used to have something in the UK that resembled US pancakes, by the way, but my memory of what we called them is unspellable. Anyway, yeah, just make a thick batter and throw it on the griddle. ħuman
- FFS you can't make American pancakes with something like 100g of flour, you have to use cups! (DD or bigger.)
- You don't really measure for pancakes, just add flour until the mixture feels right. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I tried making American pancakes today. Didn't work very well. Maybe it would help if I actually used the proper implements instead of a fork, a mug and my eye for measurements. I mean, it looked like 100g of flour to me. EddyP (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- My chef also makes ice cream to her own recipe - she calls me "litremouth" 'cause I wolf it down like nothing - she daren't leave the dish on the table until she's got hers. 17:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- There's an old thing: "when they do to forty come / men run to belly and women to bum". I'm definitely not putting it on my tum & disinterested view which I have just canvassed says my bum could do with a bit more meat on it so I don't know where it's goin' 17:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have the opposite problem - In the last few months I've developed a fairly decent spare tyre, and put it down to middle age spread. Until I read the leaflet with my meds - "may cause weight gain." Grumble. --PsyGremlinParlez! 17:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not a cook - don't like cooking - but love eating. (I'm still trying to put weight on so no bothers there. I'm up to 50kg!) 17:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ooh! Am jealous... my rhubarb's not ripe yet. Had to settle for choccie ice cream after my usual Monday bubble 'n' squeak. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 16:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Beware of the Goat[edit]
Flee in terror from the horned one--AMassiveGay (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- see "Goats" above. 19:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry didn't see that--AMassiveGay (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Would it be in poor taste to enquire whether they had killer goat curry at the wake? I'd want it that way if it were me that got mauled, no matter what the animal. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry didn't see that--AMassiveGay (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Horizon redux[edit]
Last week's Horizon proved less than satisfactory for several editors here. Tonight they are looking at the science of optical illusions. 
ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 19:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Spooks[edit]
Holy fuck! The latest series of Spooks is set to the best programme series ever. Seriously, if you have a limey-deficiency then ensure you buy the doovdie when it comes out. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Plus, added bonus: Laila Rouass is in it. She makes me do a sex wee, IN MY PANTS!! CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can respect that.
02:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can respect that.
Sigh[edit]
Xmas decorations going up in the shops already. Just in case anybody still thought the season was about the birth of a mythical creature and not rampant commercialism. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 11:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Last August I went to the beach and somebody was selling Christmas cards. I could have cried. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Local Tesco already stocked to the gunwales with "seasonal" biscuits & sweets. Just how much sugary junk food can people ingest in two weeks? Lily Inspirate me. 13:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- A shit load--AMassiveGay (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Around here, there's been xmas decorations up in some stores for a few weeks. I think Target has had them up for about a month. Most of the time anymore, I'm just happy if they wait until after the Halloween deco is at least up, if not down. I think they went up about the same time. Makes for a weird Nightmare Before Christmas shopping experience. Quarumagma - You can't explain that! 14:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wow. Is it time for the RW Christmas hat yet?--BobSpring is sprung! 15:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please to put up Halloween logo and then Thanksgiving logo before a christmas Logo. 67.72.98.45 (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wow. Is it time for the RW Christmas hat yet?--BobSpring is sprung! 15:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Around here, there's been xmas decorations up in some stores for a few weeks. I think Target has had them up for about a month. Most of the time anymore, I'm just happy if they wait until after the Halloween deco is at least up, if not down. I think they went up about the same time. Makes for a weird Nightmare Before Christmas shopping experience. Quarumagma - You can't explain that! 14:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- A shit load--AMassiveGay (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Local Tesco already stocked to the gunwales with "seasonal" biscuits & sweets. Just how much sugary junk food can people ingest in two weeks? Lily Inspirate me. 13:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Xmas logo[edit]
Before everybody heads off into HCM like last year, can we get some consensus on whether or not we should display the cute, non religious, Santa-hat logo over the festive season? I know some people see the portrayal of a little red hat, trimmed with fur, as the very essence of Xianity and therefore should be barred from the site, and others claim it's irrational. But it's a harmless little picture.
So Yays and Bah humbugs below please. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 15:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wait, RW is anti-Christianity? Since when? Ajkgordon (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Since Christianity is irrational? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Err, anything up for debate is likely to attract some extremes.. Quarumagma - You can't explain that! 17:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also, His Name is Father Christmas. It's not a harmless little picture, it takes the place of our logo. It is fucking lame. Why do we only vandalize our logo for this one holiday? It's not "ironic", it is ass-kissing and pathetic. ħuman 01:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like you got a lot of coal as a child... d hominem 11:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am VERY not Xtian but I like Christmas & see no harm at all in having a midwinter feast and marking it with the logo variation. 12:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- But marking the entire site with the image of a medieval "saint"-based man in the sky? I am shocked, I tell you, shocked! See my suggestion below about using holly. Holly is "real". ħuman 02:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- But marking the entire site with the image of a medieval "saint"-based man in the sky? I am shocked, I tell you, shocked! See my suggestion below about using holly. Holly is "real". ħuman
- I am VERY not Xtian but I like Christmas & see no harm at all in having a midwinter feast and marking it with the logo variation. 12:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like you got a lot of coal as a child...
- Also, His Name is Father Christmas. It's not a harmless little picture, it takes the place of our logo. It is fucking lame. Why do we only vandalize our logo for this one holiday? It's not "ironic", it is ass-kissing and pathetic. ħuman
- Err, anything up for debate is likely to attract some extremes.. Quarumagma - You can't explain that! 17:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Since Christianity is irrational? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yay[edit]
- Yay! Let's have the hat!--BobSpring is sprung! 15:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hat! --PsyGremlinSprich! 15:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yup. But for one day only. Should we also have other pictures - Halloween brain perhaps? Lily Inspirate me. 15:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- (EC) Two hats - the chrimbo one and a pointy black one for halloween. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- HAT!!! HAT!!! HAT!!! 16:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm all in favor of it. In the words of one of America's greatest modern philosophers, "Aren't we forgetting the true meaning of Christmas? You know, the birth of Santa." MDB (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yay. SJ Debaser 16:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hell yeah! Birth of Santa! Can we get both Santa, and the near holiday? So like.. The witches hat, as it's almost halloween, and the Santa hat on the other side? As a mockery of the consumer holiday season. Of course, that's probably only a half-step away from just leaving it up all year. Quarumagma - You can't explain that! 17:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hat. i9 19:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hat trick! 71.255.34.77 (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Hat. Tyrannis (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. The hat must prevail. From as soon as yankee thanksgiving is over until 12th night. Anyone who argues may lick me. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yay for the hat! But I don't want to see it until the 18th at the earliest. --Onion <talk> 22:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I see no problems with celebrating the birth of Mithras, except that I will be bathing in the blood of a bull for much of the relevant time. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- But only if we run it in July. ħuman 08:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- PRAISE BE TO THE HAT! d hominem 09:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Here is my totally unexpected vote for the red hat. I'm not ready for it until the 18th either, and it comes down Jan 6th. DogPMarmite Patrol 04:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- There be Hats in them there hills. --Quantheory (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Seeing as how Santa Claus was a blatant rip off of Odin and the Santa hat, in fact the whole Santa image comes from the fiercely secular "Twas the Night Before Christmas poem," I think it's a great addition to the site. It shows how religions like to claim things as their own even when it wasn't intended to be theirs. SirChuckBBoom Goes the Dynamite 07:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Bah humbug[edit]
Let's not talk about it or even think about it until at least mid December. Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 17:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- How about some tasteful holly and berries with a dusting of snow? After winter starts? ħuman 18:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- If it was for one day I wouldn't object. Any more is pandering to religious bigots who want to trample all over our right not to give a shit about their "reason for the season". I don't see it as mocking, I see it as getting on the bandwagon. What "aw, it may be RationalWiki, but, aw, it's fucking Christmas, and, aw, I love Santa"? Can't there be some place that does not make a mockery of itself besides my house? I think we already have a merry christmas holydaze, isn't that enough for you saps? ħuman 01:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Methinks that you put far too much significance in the concept of Christmas.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's odd, considering I'm not the one pushing to decorate the site for weeks for Christmas... ħuman 02:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's odd, considering I'm not the one pushing to decorate the site for weeks for Christmas... ħuman
- Methinks that you put far too much significance in the concept of Christmas.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Christmas is stupid. I prefer Easter, it has better songs ħuman 10:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Like Too Much Santa on Their Minds ħuman 10:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Best tight assed live version of too much pussy on their minds. Scarily good. ħuman 11:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Goat[edit]
- Ugh, not this debate again. Tetronian you're clueless 17:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Lol. ħuman 18:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I, Gooniepunk, hereby exercise my bureaucratic right to goat about this issue. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 22:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well said. Tetronian you're clueless 03:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It's the middle of fucking October for fuck's fucking sake[edit]
Why the motherfucking fuck are we even talking about this now? And why on earth should we not display an xmas hat at xmas? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 23:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- 'Cause last year there was HCM when the logo was changed unilaterally. 00:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- 'Twas fucking lame, too. 'Twas brain with stupid fucking santa hat on it. ħuman 01:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- 'Twas fucking lame, too. 'Twas brain with stupid fucking santa hat on it. ħuman
- Get it out of the way early. It'll take from now to sort this out. d hominem 09:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- How about we run run it from now until Halloween? ħuman 19:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- How about I just write some code that hides it for you, so we can have our fun and you can continue to be up your own arse? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- That would be 80% acceptable. But as the defender of the Mockery of Faith and Silly Hats and Tradition in General, I still would object to it being visible to anons and random readers. How about you write the code as an opt-in, with an intercom message leading anyone who wants to see it to a "click here" or "paste this into your monobook" page? ħuman 02:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Tell you who's house I'm not visiting in the season of goodwill to all men. DogPMarmite Patrol 04:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've never liked the "twice a year we'll give a shit" aspect of Xtianity. To me, every day is a day of good will, peace to humankind, and making nachos. ħuman 04:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's all well and good but I lied - it isn't about goodwill, it's about mince pies and fires and Where Eagles Dare and tea and weird relations and christmas trees and SANTA! NO, i know it's all total bollocks, but this is where pure rampant sentimentality wins me over rationality every time. If I take Xmas out of the equation, and all the palaver, every day of the year will feel the same, bar the seasons. I support change. DogPMarmite Patrol 07:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've never liked the "twice a year we'll give a shit" aspect of Xtianity. To me, every day is a day of good will, peace to humankind, and making nachos. ħuman
- Tell you who's house I'm not visiting in the season of goodwill to all men. DogPMarmite Patrol 04:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- That would be 80% acceptable. But as the defender of the Mockery of Faith and Silly Hats and Tradition in General, I still would object to it being visible to anons and random readers. How about you write the code as an opt-in, with an intercom message leading anyone who wants to see it to a "click here" or "paste this into your monobook" page? ħuman
- How about I just write some code that hides it for you, so we can have our fun and you can continue to be up your own arse? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- How about we run run it from now until Halloween? ħuman
- Get it out of the way early. It'll take from now to sort this out.
I'll just leave this here...[edit]
There goes your afternoon. Tetronian you're clueless 16:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Same guys that made the Portal flash game... and I was supposed to be doing work tonight!! d hominem 17:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've played something similar to this before. Less shiny and with a few minor changes, but it's a good mental exercise. d hominem 18:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I got to level 8 before I realized I was about to walk down a very dark path. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I played up to about level 11 or 12 before losing interest. As with most of these puzzle games, it gets to a point where there's a sudden jump in difficulty: after having shown you the basics & run through some straightforward puzzles, it presents you with a really complicated one. Yes it's good mental exercise, but not really worth the time it takes to figure out the sticky ones. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- There's not many levels (at least compared to the countless dozens of the other one I remember playing), you probably got to the same one I got stuck on. I eventually solved it but I can't remember how and it was very, very messy. You just have to realise that the same algorithm can be used to switch on both sides. And the last one is easy enough. d hominem 22:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fun, but a pain that you can't edit the algorithm and rerun it, as far as I could tell. Reminds me of two old CS toys - one was CARDiac, a cardboard computer (you are the "cpu") with 100 3 digit registers, a register can be a stored value or a command. Then there was a data manipulation thing on the old CPM box we had at Genesis in the mid 80s. There were only 16 lines available, but recursion and care could get it to do amazing things. Btw, after level 5 I got bored :( mostly due to the lack of an edit/rerun function. OK, I'll see if I'm wrong on that... ħuman 00:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fun, but a pain that you can't edit the algorithm and rerun it, as far as I could tell. Reminds me of two old CS toys - one was CARDiac, a cardboard computer (you are the "cpu") with 100 3 digit registers, a register can be a stored value or a command. Then there was a data manipulation thing on the old CPM box we had at Genesis in the mid 80s. There were only 16 lines available, but recursion and care could get it to do amazing things. Btw, after level 5 I got bored :( mostly due to the lack of an edit/rerun function. OK, I'll see if I'm wrong on that... ħuman
- There's not many levels (at least compared to the countless dozens of the other one I remember playing), you probably got to the same one I got stuck on. I eventually solved it but I can't remember how and it was very, very messy. You just have to realise that the same algorithm can be used to switch on both sides. And the last one is easy enough.
- I played up to about level 11 or 12 before losing interest. As with most of these puzzle games, it gets to a point where there's a sudden jump in difficulty: after having shown you the basics & run through some straightforward puzzles, it presents you with a really complicated one. Yes it's good mental exercise, but not really worth the time it takes to figure out the sticky ones. Wēāŝēīōīď
- I got to level 8 before I realized I was about to walk down a very dark path. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've played something similar to this before. Less shiny and with a few minor changes, but it's a good mental exercise.
- beat it, was very fun, i admit i had to cheat on lvl10 cause i didn't think to make a recursive program, but the rest i did good on!HKJGN (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's just supposed to be a bit of fun that also requires a bit of critical thinking rather than a serious programming tool. d hominem 21:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, and it was amusing, but frustrating that one's work can't be saved, one error, or a test run of something, forces you to re-enter everything. Maybe I'll go back and see what thrills lie beyond level 6... ħuman 00:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. Just click "stop" after a failure, edit the sequence, then click "go" & it will run again. Only the "reset" button clears the sequence. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 02:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I finally figured that out. I didn't have any "failures", per se, but it's nice to do test runs to see what can and can't be done. For instance, "jump" can only go up one level, but it can go down as far as you want. The first 9 were trivial, #10 is a little more... difficult. ħuman 02:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I finally figured that out. I didn't have any "failures", per se, but it's nice to do test runs to see what can and can't be done. For instance, "jump" can only go up one level, but it can go down as far as you want. The first 9 were trivial, #10 is a little more... difficult. ħuman
- No it doesn't. Just click "stop" after a failure, edit the sequence, then click "go" & it will run again. Only the "reset" button clears the sequence. Wēāŝēīōīď
- Yes indeed, and it was amusing, but frustrating that one's work can't be saved, one error, or a test run of something, forces you to re-enter everything. Maybe I'll go back and see what thrills lie beyond level 6... ħuman
- I think it's just supposed to be a bit of fun that also requires a bit of critical thinking rather than a serious programming tool.
- beat it, was very fun, i admit i had to cheat on lvl10 cause i didn't think to make a recursive program, but the rest i did good on!HKJGN (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh wow, people are still talking about this? Interesting. I found the last few levels to be rather frustrating, they basically make you reuse the same kind of strategy. Tetronian you're clueless 03:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Spoilers and solutions[edit]
First, at HKJGN, congrats, but #10 doesn't require recursion - and how did you cheat? For me, I banged my head a long time until I realized the "problem" was turning around at the "right end" light, and that jumping off the "left end" light was far easier.
My solution at 10 is:
F1 = FFFJLJJ
F2 = LJLFRJFF
Main = 12
LJL1RJFF
Eleven is messing with me though. I can do 3/4 of it easily, but I am running out of command space. ħuman 07:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I stopped trying to out think it (using jumps instead of running down rows) and solved it immediately. Twelve was as trivial as five. ħuman 11:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Btw, it says I used 197 commands to "finish". How did others do? I guess that's the second half of the game, the "sticky" part - trying to lower that figure. Too bad I didn't notice the command count until level ten or so. Does anyone know if it's possible to work on them without working through all the previous ones each time? ħuman 20:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, of course. You do the left hand light first and can jump back to the start to rerun half of it again! Genius, but that's not how I managed it. There's a combination of going left/right/left/right that you can repeat in both directions and the rest is filling in the gaps to turn around. d hominem 11:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was chasing that LRLR monkey for days, when I finally realized my solution, that the big waste of time/commands was getting out of the right hand light to do anything else. Congrats on doing it the other way, care to post your "code"? ħuman 05:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was chasing that LRLR monkey for days, when I finally realized my solution, that the big waste of time/commands was getting out of the right hand light to do anything else. Congrats on doing it the other way, care to post your "code"? ħuman
- My score is 190, guess that sucked big time compared to the score list. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Beat mine, apparently people have got it down to 131/132 or so, I'd try but I get bored really fast of having to start over every time rather than say "let me run test 7 again". oh well, I guess that's how "video games" work? ħuman 05:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Beat mine, apparently people have got it down to 131/132 or so, I'd try but I get bored really fast of having to start over every time rather than say "let me run test 7 again". oh well, I guess that's how "video games" work? ħuman
- Ah, of course. You do the left hand light first and can jump back to the start to rerun half of it again! Genius, but that's not how I managed it. There's a combination of going left/right/left/right that you can repeat in both directions and the rest is filling in the gaps to turn around.
- Btw, it says I used 197 commands to "finish". How did others do? I guess that's the second half of the game, the "sticky" part - trying to lower that figure. Too bad I didn't notice the command count until level ten or so. Does anyone know if it's possible to work on them without working through all the previous ones each time? ħuman
Today's exciting hint[edit]
If, like me, you work with many gigabytes of very small files (like, er, source code... and, er, nothing else I can really think of) get in to the habit of defragging your drive once a week. Rather than once every 3 years, so your drive looks like crazy paving and everything you do results in a long arse disk seek. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's 2010. Go SSD. Compile on tmpfs. --85.76.124.93 (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, so that's why my server's hard drives are thrashed. d hominem 20:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Win XP and greater have an autodefrag which kicks in after your machine has been idle for 10 mins or more anyway. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, so that's why my server's hard drives are thrashed.
Can't you yanks keep your nutters in your own patch?[edit]
Fucking American woman's charity invades UK. 07:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- But you pommies are such fertile ground! ħuman 07:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Heh! It's either Limeys or poms. Pommies don't exist. 08:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I couldn't make up my mind, so I merged them. ħuman 09:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Pommie is the adjective, as in pommie bastards. Lily Inspirate me. 09:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I couldn't make up my mind, so I merged them. ħuman
- Heh! It's either Limeys or poms. Pommies don't exist. 08:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, I think the US is a net importer of nutters. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- WE IS NICE AND CHARITABLE. You just jealous. sterile Etch-a-Sketch 12:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Extreme, inhuman, immoral... but I hate to say that it may well work. d hominem 16:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- So they get £200 to have a voluntary vasectomy but there's no coercion or threats. OK, addicts may be in a vulnerable condition but many religious charities also take advantage of the vulnerable. It was said on Breakfast TV that for some people having a family is a way for them to escape addiction but it may not be and kids born to addicts may well suffer. My main criticism is that it is attempting to tackle a symptom or effect rather than the causes of addiction. Lily Inspirate me. 16:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Extreme, inhuman, immoral... but I hate to say that it may well work.
It's an idea, but £200 is BS. Can't even pay 1 months rent in most places with that. They are probably lining the pockets of drug lords as we speak. They are redistributing money of non-addicts (their donors) to the drug lords, temporarily subsidizing an addict who also gets further physically screwed up. So basically its like adding an extra harmful side effect to the drug. Sen (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- True. You can't do anything significant with £200 - a lot of it (maybe even most) will just turn into more drugs. EddyP (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you could probably buy a fatal overdose with it. Which might be the intention too. d hominem 10:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you could probably buy a fatal overdose with it. Which might be the intention too.
Moralitee[edit]
I'm not a subscriber but anyone who is might have a look at this & give us a precis? 10:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't Uncle BobM a subby? ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 15:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I hope you mean subscriber! Subby's got a whole load of connotations for me.
15:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Now why on earth would that be your very first thought? SWMBO? ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 15:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
15:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sadly, it was my first thought as well. --PsyGremlinSprich! 15:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ditto...
d hominem 15:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Me too. Subscriber didn't even occur to me until I looked down at SusanG's comment, so I was really really confused. --Quantheory (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ditto...
- Sadly, it was my first thought as well. --PsyGremlinSprich! 15:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Now why on earth would that be your very first thought? SWMBO?
- I hope you mean subscriber! Subby's got a whole load of connotations for me.
Just seen this. Oh my God how did they know!!?? The shame!! Ah! The article. Yes, yes, of course! That's what I thought to. Of course. cough. My NS magazine arrives a bit late here in Spain so I haven't read that yet. Also looks like there are a lot of articles on the subject. If you'd like Susan I can download the articles as text and mail them to you.--BobSpring is sprung! 06:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Where have all the comets gone?[edit]
Seriously, I mean, we've all seen pictures of comets carving a majestic swathe across the sky, but when last was there actually a comet around these parts? Even Halley's was a big flop; I remember getting up at about 2am, driving out into the country, to see a faint, fuzzy blob. Nothing like the show in 1910. When's the next one due? --PsyGremlinParlez! 13:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- There's bits of Halley due in a couple of days. Googled around and unfotunately we(UK)'ve got a major electrical chain called Comet who sell Sky products. 14:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Try NASA's website? They do some stuff with space and such. ħuman 20:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Try NASA's website? They do some stuff with space and such. ħuman
- Alas, it's not a PC World. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 14:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
15:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I remember seeing Hale-Bopp quite, quite clearly. d hominem 15:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Me too, but never as big as depicted in those mediaeval paintings. Of course if comets were passing by more frequently they wouldn't have attracted such portentous overtones. Lily Inspirate me. 16:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I thought Hale-Bopp was pretty impressive. I was waiting for the storms and pestilence afterwards. --BobSpring is sprung! 20:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- H-B was very big, but far far away. I saw it, not very impressive. However, sometime within a year of that there was another, smaller, comet, that was very near. I remember one clear night I was lookin' at it, it went across a major chunk of the sky. Ran a roll of film at various exposures, but it came back from the chemist blank. Always wondered if I should try getting it reprinted, since the machine may have given up on the unexpected content. ħuman 20:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect you're thinking of Hale-Bopp Human. I remember it as being clearly visible for a long time. It was around so long that I stopped noticing it.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, H-B was only a few degrees across. This short-lived nearby small comet was dramatic as hell. ħuman 06:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, H-B was only a few degrees across. This short-lived nearby small comet was dramatic as hell. ħuman
- I suspect you're thinking of Hale-Bopp Human. I remember it as being clearly visible for a long time. It was around so long that I stopped noticing it.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- H-B was very big, but far far away. I saw it, not very impressive. However, sometime within a year of that there was another, smaller, comet, that was very near. I remember one clear night I was lookin' at it, it went across a major chunk of the sky. Ran a roll of film at various exposures, but it came back from the chemist blank. Always wondered if I should try getting it reprinted, since the machine may have given up on the unexpected content. ħuman
- I thought Hale-Bopp was pretty impressive. I was waiting for the storms and pestilence afterwards. --BobSpring is sprung! 20:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Me too, but never as big as depicted in those mediaeval paintings. Of course if comets were passing by more frequently they wouldn't have attracted such portentous overtones. Lily Inspirate me. 16:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I remember seeing Hale-Bopp quite, quite clearly.
This is not "spectacular". What I saw seriously covered half the night sky, and was classic comet-shaped. But wasn't around for long. ħuman 07:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that's how I remember it. I know by using some clever zooming you can make celestial objects look much bigger (photographers do it with the moon so often it's not even funny any more) but it was pretty big in the sky.
- Also, I was looking up comets and came across this green ink site. d hominem 10:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I raise you GLP's space section. The sky there is falling on average once a week.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, ZG, just looking at the post headers, there's a special kind of stupid lurking there. Love the "Frog jumping on Apollo11 video proves they weren't on the moon" Like NASA is going to go to all that expense, and then let the wildlife slip in. --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- But in fairness, most of the posts on that thread are along the lines of "it's a reflection, you're retarded". d hominem 11:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- But in fairness, most of the posts on that thread are along the lines of "it's a reflection, you're retarded".
- Wow, ZG, just looking at the post headers, there's a special kind of stupid lurking there. Love the "Frog jumping on Apollo11 video proves they weren't on the moon" Like NASA is going to go to all that expense, and then let the wildlife slip in. --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I raise you GLP's space section. The sky there is falling on average once a week.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
tHE eVENT[edit]
So, The Event starts on UK TV this Friday, to our Westponders - Is it worth following? ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 18:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- See, I can't watch that without thinking about this. REMAIN INDOORS!! CrundyTalk nerdy to me 18:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was just listening to Front Row on Radio4 and that allusion was mentioned in the intro to a discussion of the prog. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
- Shan't bother 18:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds to me like US networks though "oh shit, Lost is finished, what are we going to do?!?!?" and decided to get a few manatees in... d hominem 11:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Watched 1.5 eps so far. Nothing special - have a feeling it's another Lost meets Fringe meets Conspiracy theory of the week. Am currently hooked on better viewing: Psychoville, Caprica, Dollhouse and Glee (yes, I'm a gleek and proud). --PsyGremlinTala! 11:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds to me like US networks though "oh shit, Lost is finished, what are we going to do?!?!?" and decided to get a few manatees in...
- Shan't bother 18:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was just listening to Front Row on Radio4 and that allusion was mentioned in the intro to a discussion of the prog.
The angriest I've been all month[edit]
Here's Beck at his finest, this time on parental rights and medical treatment. Guaranteed to piss you off. Don't listen unless you want to be in a bad mood for the rest of the day. Feedback: should I WIGO it, and where? PhillipA (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- WIGO clogs? World? ħuman 05:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Broccoli enemas? Whut? WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 06:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- GET OFF MY SHOW!!! GET OFF!!!! GET OFF MY SHOW!!! d hominem 11:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Touch me on my studio --PsyGremlin講話 11:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- GET OFF MY SHOW!!! GET OFF!!!! GET OFF MY SHOW!!!
- Broccoli enemas? Whut? Wēāŝēīōīď
Of interest?[edit]
Wash post OpEd on Nuremberg. 13:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Cryptography[edit]
I just had a brilliant idea for 100% unbreakable cryptography. Consider this: it is mathematically proven that one-time pads are unbreakable, right? The problem is that the OTP is as big as the message itself, which makes it rather unpractical for regular mail exchange and stuff like that. But the solution is obvious: if you compress the OTP, it gets smaller, right? And if you compress it recursively, well then it gets smaller and smaller and smaller.
Here comes the clou: if you keep compressing the OTP, eventually it will be so small that it fits into a single bit! The great thing is that at this point you don't even need to send the key to the other party: there's a 50% chance they'll guess it right the first time! And even if they don't, they'll definitely get it right at the second attempt. A 100% unbreakable key that doesn't need to be stored nor transferred! Heck, you could even avoid generating it in the first place, thus making it unknown to anyone including yourself. How's that for unbreakable cryptography?
Now that I've told everyone, I'll have this method patented and then I'll be rich for the rest of my life. --151.81.106.99 (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sheesh, what have you been smoking? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 18:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- My professor. But don't tell anyone. --151.81.106.99 (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hope you got bonus marks. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 19:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- (EC) That was an exceptional example of fractal wrongness. If your one time pads are compressible in the first place, you've fucked up already. --Quantheory (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're just jealous. I contend that everything is compressible if you only push hard enough. And if that doesn't work, I'll just use smaller bits. Duh. --151.81.106.99 (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- My version of the one time pad is the one time photo. Take one photograph and send it to the recipient as a reference. In Photoshop create a text message as a binary image then overlay and merge it with the original then post it on Flickr. They then subract one image from the other to reveal the hidden message. All completely invisible to the security services who are wasting billions of taxpayers money trying to eavesdrop on Joe Public. If I had to give it a name I'd call it steganography. BTW eavesdropping comes fom the practice of hiding a listening hole in the eaves of a house so that someone could overhear what was being said by those at the door below. A common pratice in Elizabethan/Jacobean England. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 19:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- An easy way of encrypting data... and an easy way to screw it up. The pixels from photographs are usually highly correlated for small distances. — Pietrow ☏ 20:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, but it's not cryptography, it's steganography! --Quantheory (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- You'd have to manipulate the photograph for that to work and there are programs and algorithms designed to do that. It'd show up if someone looked even slightly closely and you'd have issues with web-based services because they compress the crap out of images. d hominem 10:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I know, you could send a cardboard cut-out of the message in the post as the key. Then, you send a black piece of cardboard. When the first piece of cardboard is overlayed onto the second, the message can be read. If anyone intercepts the message, they just have a piece of black cardboard! Broccoli (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- For a really, really impossible to crack scheme, I always use ROT13. Not very secure, but here's the catch: I run my plaintext through it TWICE! Ha! Try breaking that one. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- ba-dum..pshhh. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't get it. What's supposed to be so hard about it? To decrypt it, all one needs to do is run it through ROT-13 (that's minus 13) ... TWICE! --151.83.152.30 (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I always thought it work best just to invent your own language or just use completely garbled terminology. Then even if your cypher is broken, how do they know? You're just talking bollocks anyway. So "Copy all agents, fox heading vector 298, intercept" just means "Ooh goody! Takeaway's here!!" d hominem 19:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Steganography is just concealed writing, a single bit overlay in a 24-bit colour image would be undetectable unless you knew exactly what the original image was. You could even do it as the white background on a web-page, especially if you dispersed it in different colour channels and wrote in Arabic. There are many ways of passing messages which would not be detected by the security services so to work on the basis that wholesale interception of private communications is necessary to prevent terror is fundamentally flawed and ends up as a mass intrusion of personal privacy and infringement of liberty. While much of the right wing talks the talk on privacy rights for their personal finances, when it comes to giving the security services greater powers over terrorism they are often put aside. A lot of the powers that were enacted in the wake of the various terrorist attacks have actually been extended into other areas. In the UK we had anti-terrorism powers being used to pursue someone that wanted to get their children into a particular school by claiming to live in a different location. Lily Inspirate me. 11:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I see what you mean about the 1 bit overlay. But still, it requires some image manipulation to work - albeit subtle. So are some things that will spot it, but probably only experimental computer science nerds. That still wouldn't tell you what the message is, but it would reveal that there was something up, and may even reveal the raw encryption. However, the amount of effort and time required to analyse every forum avatar and flickr upload just wouldn't be worth it. d hominem 18:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I see what you mean about the 1 bit overlay. But still, it requires some image manipulation to work - albeit subtle. So are some things that will spot it, but probably only experimental computer science nerds. That still wouldn't tell you what the message is, but it would reveal that there was something up, and may even reveal the raw encryption. However, the amount of effort and time required to analyse every forum avatar and flickr upload just wouldn't be worth it.
- Steganography is just concealed writing, a single bit overlay in a 24-bit colour image would be undetectable unless you knew exactly what the original image was. You could even do it as the white background on a web-page, especially if you dispersed it in different colour channels and wrote in Arabic. There are many ways of passing messages which would not be detected by the security services so to work on the basis that wholesale interception of private communications is necessary to prevent terror is fundamentally flawed and ends up as a mass intrusion of personal privacy and infringement of liberty. While much of the right wing talks the talk on privacy rights for their personal finances, when it comes to giving the security services greater powers over terrorism they are often put aside. A lot of the powers that were enacted in the wake of the various terrorist attacks have actually been extended into other areas. In the UK we had anti-terrorism powers being used to pursue someone that wanted to get their children into a particular school by claiming to live in a different location. Lily Inspirate me. 11:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I always thought it work best just to invent your own language or just use completely garbled terminology. Then even if your cypher is broken, how do they know? You're just talking bollocks anyway. So "Copy all agents, fox heading vector 298, intercept" just means "Ooh goody! Takeaway's here!!"
- For a really, really impossible to crack scheme, I always use ROT13. Not very secure, but here's the catch: I run my plaintext through it TWICE! Ha! Try breaking that one. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I know, you could send a cardboard cut-out of the message in the post as the key. Then, you send a black piece of cardboard. When the first piece of cardboard is overlayed onto the second, the message can be read. If anyone intercepts the message, they just have a piece of black cardboard! Broccoli (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- You'd have to manipulate the photograph for that to work and there are programs and algorithms designed to do that. It'd show up if someone looked even slightly closely and you'd have issues with web-based services because they compress the crap out of images.
- Ah, but it's not cryptography, it's steganography! --Quantheory (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- An easy way of encrypting data... and an easy way to screw it up. The pixels from photographs are usually highly correlated for small distances. — Pietrow ☏ 20:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Obligatory
- My professor. But don't tell anyone. --151.81.106.99 (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Electronic sensors at stores.[edit]
Does anybody know if the tags, when triggered, relay the product info of that tag to the registers or not? What I am getting at is that on numerous occasions, mostly at book stores and definitely at my university's store, I have triggered the alarm and the people at the registers simply waved me through without so much as a glance. I have thought that maybe the alarm going off is such a common occurrence that they don't even bother checking. I know textbooks purchased from the campus bookstore previously and brought back in in backpacks will trigger the alarm and the workers don't even seem to look in my direction. I can help but think that it would be very easy to steal and that these alarms do nothing when not followed up on. Note: I am not a thief. What's the deal? Anybody work retail here? NetharianCubicles are prisons! 23:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nah, the tags are totally passive, there's no information about what is being stolen to convey. It's just that shop workers are so used to false positives, they don't really care. Just like how car alarms are more annoying than helpful now. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think it depends on the system. Most of the older tags are generic but newer RFID systems embed unique information and are even touted as being able to tag things for the life of the product. RFID tags are becoming an important part of stock control and Wal*Mart has invested millions in them. Lily Inspirate me. 07:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- RFIDs would do it - they can have a unique digit for every atom in the universe dontcha know. And I'm pretty sure any half-modern University library will encode their books like that (I might have to inquire at mine). But it probably is false positives being far too common, the test sensitivity is probably quite low as I don't think you'd get much background theft on a campus bookshop and from people who don't look very shady. d hominem 10:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Will we soon see (e.g.) steel briefcases like this wallet which is prolly intended as a block on such things. 11:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- £49.50? I'll take two!! d hominem 11:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- With most of these systems, the tags that set off the alarm are added to the product, then removed or deactivated when it's purchased. With DVDs & CDs they're just a sticker containing some sort metal strip, that's attached to the outer packaging. With books, they're a flat tag & usually they're shoved in between the pages somewhere like a bookmark. The counter staff may not always be able to find the tag & remove it, or might rub the book over a magnet, which doesn't always work. Campus bookshops don't get a lot of thefts & may ignore the alarm most of the time. City centre bookshops tend to get a lot more tramps & crazies wandering through, so might have a security presence (in larger stores) or pay more more attention to the alarm. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 12:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- We don't have an article on test sensitivity, do we? d hominem 09:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- We don't have an article on test sensitivity, do we?
- With most of these systems, the tags that set off the alarm are added to the product, then removed or deactivated when it's purchased. With DVDs & CDs they're just a sticker containing some sort metal strip, that's attached to the outer packaging. With books, they're a flat tag & usually they're shoved in between the pages somewhere like a bookmark. The counter staff may not always be able to find the tag & remove it, or might rub the book over a magnet, which doesn't always work. Campus bookshops don't get a lot of thefts & may ignore the alarm most of the time. City centre bookshops tend to get a lot more tramps & crazies wandering through, so might have a security presence (in larger stores) or pay more more attention to the alarm. Wēāŝēīōīď
- £49.50? I'll take two!!
- Will we soon see (e.g.) steel briefcases like this wallet which is prolly intended as a block on such things. 11:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- RFIDs would do it - they can have a unique digit for every atom in the universe dontcha know. And I'm pretty sure any half-modern University library will encode their books like that (I might have to inquire at mine). But it probably is false positives being far too common, the test sensitivity is probably quite low as I don't think you'd get much background theft on a campus bookshop and from people who don't look very shady.
- I think it depends on the system. Most of the older tags are generic but newer RFID systems embed unique information and are even touted as being able to tag things for the life of the product. RFID tags are becoming an important part of stock control and Wal*Mart has invested millions in them. Lily Inspirate me. 07:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Teabagger hopefuls[edit]
Am I right in assuming that most of the conservative/right wing/republican candidates being put forward are first timers, with little or no political experience. Which should make for a wonderful clusterfuck if they do all get elected? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not nearly like most of them, but many. People like Christine O'Donnell have been involved in politics for years - I think this is her third Senate campaign, actually. Those who weren't directly involved have still been on the periphery. Another example is Joe Miller, who was a judge and has run for state office before (which is a lot - for Alaska). And of course Rand Paul is Ron Paul's son with all the associated experience. Sharron Angle is a two-term state rep and previous candidate for Senate. The exception is someone like Carl Paladino, whose only experience seems to be a few petition-type things and business affairs. By and large, these are people who have been locked out of races for one reason or another during primary phases, not newcomers to politics.--
talk
12:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Rachel Maddow covered that and several other topics related to the teabaggers running for office last night.
Speaking of tea baggers[edit]
Normally, I'm not in favour of politicians thumping the bible, but this ad is a classic:
The "aqua buddha" cracks me up every time. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's a good ad and Conway is getting some mileage out of it (and the same accusations during debates) but it's kind of sad to me; it sort of reinforces the idea that not being Christian disqualifies one. Plus those were just college hijinks.--talk 14:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- If "did something embarrassing in college" is a disqualifier from elective office, then Congress should be filled with people with nothing beyond a high school diploma. And of course we have Mister Garrison's immortal line, "kids, there's a time and a place for everything. It's called college."
- Still, though... AquaBuddha? Eep. MDB (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- As unfortunately stupid as Americans are (Kentuckians especially...sorry), this ad should be extremely effective, which means it's good politics. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure it is a good ad in that it will make people want to vote for Conway. It is funny though. Hell, if that ad were all I knew about Rand Paul, I'd totally vote for him. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- There was an ad in 2008, I think for New Jersey governor. Basically, the Democrat was making very thinly veiled fat jokes about the Republican. As a reformed fattie and a die-hard Democrat, I would have voted for the Republican, I found the ad so tasteless. MDB (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I remember that ad. You have to understand that NJ elections are notoriously dirty - the Republican in question (who is now the governor, Chris Christie) called his opponent (among other things) a terrorist and a socialist. Tetronian you're clueless 16:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- There was an ad in 2008, I think for New Jersey governor. Basically, the Democrat was making very thinly veiled fat jokes about the Republican. As a reformed fattie and a die-hard Democrat, I would have voted for the Republican, I found the ad so tasteless. MDB (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure it is a good ad in that it will make people want to vote for Conway. It is funny though. Hell, if that ad were all I knew about Rand Paul, I'd totally vote for him. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- As unfortunately stupid as Americans are (Kentuckians especially...sorry), this ad should be extremely effective, which means it's good politics. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Cracked again[edit]
5 Things You Won't Believe Aren't In the Bible --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 14:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ooh, and it has a pic of Dawkins in the arms of some serious hawtness. Got to drop my machismo levels now.--Brendiggg (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting stuff. Sadly, the chances of anyone from the Religious Wrong seeing that page are close to zero.
- For those who just want the photo. Anybody know what Cracked's copyright regs are? ħuman 18:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- That won't belong to Cracked, it'll probably be ripped from the Guardian or Facebook where Ariane Sherine started the ABC. It's probably free for educational purposes, I'll check the site. d hominem 18:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Describing hell as a piece of fan fiction is pretty spot on.
d hominem 19:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Describing hell as a piece of fan fiction is pretty spot on.
- That won't belong to Cracked, it'll probably be ripped from the Guardian or Facebook where Ariane Sherine started the ABC. It's probably free for educational purposes, I'll check the site.
- For those who just want the photo. Anybody know what Cracked's copyright regs are? ħuman
- Interesting stuff. Sadly, the chances of anyone from the Religious Wrong seeing that page are close to zero.
Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 08:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also the Assumption of Mary. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 09:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- definitely biblical inerrancy - that was put out by Pope something-or-other in the dark ages. You could also include "the bible as one book" although it'd me a bit meta. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also the Assumption of Mary.
How is it that Shep Smith still has his job?[edit]
This is the only guy at Fox News I respect. How long till he's fired?--Thanatos (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fire their token sane guy? Totnesmartin (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Rally to Restore Sanity[edit]
Anyone else going to DC on the 30th? --Leotardo (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Was contemplating attending the Rally to Keep Fear Alive, but then I realized that I didn't want to go to the expense of a plane ticket or the stress of driving, and I don't have any points left to spend on free nights at hotels. So no. -A Stranger
- I would seriously consider going if I were not taking a trip in an entirely different direction at that time. DickTurpis (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- If anybody wants to sponsor me, I'll go. ħuman 05:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you're in the New York area you can get a free bus ride from HuffPo's offices in Manhattan. Tetronian you're clueless 14:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Despite living in the DC area, I'm not going, because I get really stressed in large crowds. I plan to be playing Arkham Horror while it's going on. MDB (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you're in the New York area you can get a free bus ride from HuffPo's offices in Manhattan. Tetronian you're clueless 14:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- If anybody wants to sponsor me, I'll go. ħuman
- I would seriously consider going if I were not taking a trip in an entirely different direction at that time. DickTurpis (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Pseudointellectual tripe[edit]
Turns out, that if you try hard enough, you can read into just about anything and make it seem like a legit English Lit essay. d hominem 01:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- WTF is that blog (supposed to be) about? --ZooGuard (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- No fucking clue. I'm going to assume it's taking the piss a little. d hominem 09:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- No fucking clue. I'm going to assume it's taking the piss a little.
Try and disprove that...[edit]
I rest my Case: click me hard Gmb (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely the best of the past few weeks. Tetronian you're clueless 16:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Airport security[edit]
I've just had a thought while going on about specificity and sensitivity and having a few flashbacks to getting patted down for fifteen minutes last time I tried to board a plane. What is the fucking point of trying to smuggle bomb onto a plane?? You'll never get a weapon passed security, so you'll never get on a plane with it. Assuming you're a suicide bomber, would it therefore make more sense to go ape and detonate at the security point? I mean, before security, you don't get checked. And after security is never going to happen for any potential suicide bomber. And the security checkpoint creates a massive bottleneck of people who have nowhere really to go (especially if you did it in tiny little departure lounge at Charles de Gaulle). It's the ultimate target. It's mind-numbingly obvious to do this - even for someone dumb enough to blow themselves up. So really, if there's a genuine threat, why aren't people doing this more? Why aren't there more examples of people taking out security checkpoints like this? I imagine the July 7th tube bombers could have doubled their kill count if they blew up at the gates rather than on the trains themselves. Not that I want this to happen, but surely if the threat was real and as major as claimed, this would actually be happening and there's nothing we could do in the name of more security that could stop it. d hominem 14:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Most security measures are responses to previous threats and only designed to show that "the powers that be are seen to be doing something" because "people demand a response" no matter how ineffective it may be in reality. I have spotted a gaping security hole at one major European airport whereby you could openly take several litres of unauthorised fluids onto a plane disguised as duty-free. Where they don't have microwave body scanners you could also strap stuff to your body. A couple of well-placed truck or car-bombs in tunnels at peak times in citities could wreak havoc, or take out that French suspension bridge. The 7/7 London transport bombers could have killed just as many people in Leeds; it wouldn't take much to poison our water supply blow up a major gas pipeline. So yes, if a group really wanted to disrupt our society then they could do it on a massive scale. Airplanes and capital cities have been major targets because they usually guarantee greater drama but I think that the scale of global terrorism has been vastly overplayed by governments. They can get away with the security in airports but trying to apply the same measures across society in general will not work. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 15:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- That reminds me that I need to get around to writing an article on black swans and also finishing the book. Terrorism and the responses are completely textbook examples of that. d hominem 16:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention that security has also been increased in the maritime industry over tha last 3-4 years thanks to US influence. Different alert levels are now strictly enforced both in ports and on vessels. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 16:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's what the very very intelligent security commentator Bruce Schneier calls "security theatre", which basically means "cheaply looking secure without being secure."
- I forgot to mention that security has also been increased in the maritime industry over tha last 3-4 years thanks to US influence. Different alert levels are now strictly enforced both in ports and on vessels.
- That reminds me that I need to get around to writing an article on black swans and also finishing the book. Terrorism and the responses are completely textbook examples of that.
- For instance, El Al, the Israeli national airline, puts every piece of baggage into a chamber that reduces air pressure, to see if there's something triggered to explode at high altitudes. That's a very good precaution, but it's lousy security theatre, because it's expensive, and not seen by the passengers.
- By contract, the US debated a few years ago whether airline pilots should be allowed to carry their own guns. It's good security theatre -- the passengers see the pilot is armed. But it's debatable how effective it would be.
- The really effective measure would be to redesign planes so the cockpit is simply not accessible from the passenger cabin, or at the least, has a heavy duty door between the cockpit and the cabin, and then tell the pilots "if you're hijacked, your job is land the plane as soon as possible and I don't care if the cute stewardess your planning to fuck tonight is screaming for her life, land the damn plane!" But that's poor security theatre, because it's not noticeable, and if the passengers know the pilot's sole goal is to land the plane rather than rush in with a 357 Magnum and save the day, it's actually anti-security theatre.
- It's all about appearances rather than what would really work. MDB (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- (EC)I haven't travelled by sea since 2003 or so, but I did go through it for the Eurostar on the way out, although it was much quicker and less intrusive than the airport one. They just wave you through pretty quick, while the airport one was set off by anything more than 5 mg of metal. d hominem 18:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Incidentally, we do have security theatre, might be worth revising it. d hominem 18:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I swear, some day some mother fucker is actually going to have the bomb sewn in to his chest cavity. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Incidentally, we do have security theatre, might be worth revising it.
- (EC)I haven't travelled by sea since 2003 or so, but I did go through it for the Eurostar on the way out, although it was much quicker and less intrusive than the airport one. They just wave you through pretty quick, while the airport one was set off by anything more than 5 mg of metal.
- It's all about appearances rather than what would really work. MDB (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Appointed Trustees and foundation updates (important)[edit]
(please to unsticky when this is history ħuman 07:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC) )
As has been discussed in multiple locations we will soon be taking an important step with the formation of a non-profit corporation to manage RW. Everything is slated to begin the first week of August. There will be a period of 3-4 months as we transition ownership, and work on establishing all the little elements needed for the foundation to function.
The work will be done by myself and 2 appointed trustees that will make up the initial board. The goal will be to have elections for the remaining trustee positions in January 2011. There is a lot that has to be done in the mean time, and your feedback, support and encouragement is appreciated. My goal is to make the establishment, the transition, and ultimately the management of the foundation as open and accountable to the RW users as possible.
The appointed trustees for this period are Human and Armondikov. While the three of us are ultimately responsible for seeing this thing done and done properly any concerns, feedback, suggestions, or help that anyone wishes to give is great.
The rough outline for what is going to happen is as follows:
- File papers of incorporation in NM (early August) done
- File papers with the IRS (early-mid August) done
- Approval of the by-laws (early-mid August) done
- Transition ownership of the domain, hardware and other physical and intellectual property from me to the foundation (late August) done
- Begin working out election of trustees, voting and nomination process, timelines, etc. (September/October)
- Finalize election procedures for trustees (Hopefully by November)
- Establishment of financial accounts for the foundation (Likely December as I will need to return to NM for a lot of it)
- Hold our first election for trustees (January)
- Hold our first full meeting of the board (January/February), where we establish general protocol for meetings, site management, etc.
Financial costs[edit]
None of this is free. Every document filed with the Secretary of State, the IRS, and state tax agencies has fees attached to them. Official copies of documents, notarization, and establishing legal ways to sign contracts electronically all have associated costs. I am prepared to foot whatever bill is necessary to see this through but if anyone has a few dollars they can afford to throw my way to help curtail the costs to myself personally I would be grateful. tmtoulouse 06:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have an estimate of the overall cost, including personal esigs, etc.? ħuman 07:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- On the order of $500-$600, which is why I am asking for assistance. tmtoulouse 07:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'll dump some spare cash your way but you'll have to wait until October for anything substantial. d hominem 10:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hang on... if it costs this much, can we not go ahead with it "unofficially", as in do all the ground work and treat it "as if" it was real, and then incorporate properly when we A) have a need and B) have the cash? It can't cost anything to do it all "informally" and do the paper work further down the line, or am I missing something, like does the paperwork have to be done in order to share the physical responsibility such as potential lawsuits? d hominem 10:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Having it all filed is what gives the shielding. It creates a new "person" in a legal sense to take on the burdens. So no. It has to be in existence for any of the benefits to work. If we're (say) sued, and then file, then it only shields us as of when it's created. And ~$600 is right. I just did all that crap last summer. The bonus is, most of it is relatively painless. (I made a for-profit corporation, but I assume most of the paper work is similar.) Quaru (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I figured as much. I was just wondering if we could run "as if" and then if someone filed against us, we'd run away and cry. d hominem 10:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, sure. We could also shove broccoli in our ears and run through the streets naked. I just don't think it'd help the situation much. Quaru (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Could we keep the broccoli thing as possible future idea? It has promise. Thanks for the update. I'll do the PayPal thing early next month ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 12:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, sure. We could also shove broccoli in our ears and run through the streets naked. I just don't think it'd help the situation much. Quaru (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I figured as much. I was just wondering if we could run "as if" and then if someone filed against us, we'd run away and cry.
- Having it all filed is what gives the shielding. It creates a new "person" in a legal sense to take on the burdens. So no. It has to be in existence for any of the benefits to work. If we're (say) sued, and then file, then it only shields us as of when it's created. And ~$600 is right. I just did all that crap last summer. The bonus is, most of it is relatively painless. (I made a for-profit corporation, but I assume most of the paper work is similar.) Quaru (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hang on... if it costs this much, can we not go ahead with it "unofficially", as in do all the ground work and treat it "as if" it was real, and then incorporate properly when we A) have a need and B) have the cash? It can't cost anything to do it all "informally" and do the paper work further down the line, or am I missing something, like does the paperwork have to be done in order to share the physical responsibility such as potential lawsuits?
- I'll dump some spare cash your way but you'll have to wait until October for anything substantial.
- On the order of $500-$600, which is why I am asking for assistance. tmtoulouse 07:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The largest cost is with the IRS, and that doesn't have to be done right away anyway. tmtoulouse 15:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've unstickied this thread, as I figure it's not required any more. Please to resticky if I'm wrong. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't tell the Creotards[edit]
Sloths seem to be created, not evolved 
14:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Freaks. d hominem 14:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- #371 in the Bestiary of Creationist lies: evolutionary biologists have no explanation for those extra vertebrae => my distinctly 20th Century biblical literalism is right!!1! 15:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- #371 in the Bestiary of Creationist lies: evolutionary biologists have no explanation for those extra vertebrae => my distinctly 20th Century biblical literalism is right!!1!
Any theology students?[edit]
I'm looking to come up with a short program of study to better understand 20th Century Calvinism. Are there any theology students here that could help me get oriented? Any help appreciated. 15:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Are you planning to include Hobbes as well? Lily Inspirate me. 16:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Theology students? On this Wiki? You are perhaps making some sort of elaborate joke?
- But, assuming you are serious, from my limited knowledge of it, you might start with the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy (originally a Calvinist shouting match), presuppositionalism, and that noted Dominionist kook, R.J. Rushdoony.
ListenerXTalkerX 17:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've been reading on presuppositionalism. I want to better understand the broad appeal of purely presupp apologetics, vs. the hybrid advocated by the likes of Carnell, Pinnock, among contemporary Calvinists. I'm particularly interested in the political ramifications of presupp and the problem of getting people to not only vote against their own economic interests but vigorously advocate lies through the lens of the "Christian worldview." Thanks for the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy link - I'll have a look. 17:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- As to the question of lie-advocacy, we have seen in abundance what amoral wretches will do merely for the sake of a six-figure salary; now compare that with being treated like you have been specially elected to play a part in ruling the world and also enjoy an eternity of happy harp-strumming, and it is not that difficult to understand.
- ...the problem of getting people to not only vote against their own economic interests... Oh, surely somebody has gotten around to analyzing the false consciousness of those opiate-doped Calvinists by now... ListenerXTalkerX 17:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have been pretty heavy into religious studies this semester. i9 19:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, Rushdoony = blowing my mind. I wish they'd spend more time telling the reader why their presumptions make sense in the first place and what distinguishes presupp from blind faith. Oh here we go. Frame arguing presupp is different than fedeism. My head spinning from the fail logic and nonsense. No wonder credulous people get cowed by this shit. It's confusing. 20:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Want confusing, head over to creation.com and check out their daily article. Somehow all the fossils and evidence for the evolution of the horse is in fact evidence for creation. Somehow or another. i9 20:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, understanding how creationists can believe that stuff is part of my little Fall project here (pun intended). Presupp is a powerful mind disease. But thanks anyway for the invitation. Those guys make me sick. 20:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, understanding how creationists can believe that stuff is part of my little Fall project here (pun intended). Presupp is a powerful mind disease. But thanks anyway for the invitation. Those guys make me sick.
- Want confusing, head over to creation.com and check out their daily article. Somehow all the fossils and evidence for the evolution of the horse is in fact evidence for creation. Somehow or another. i9 20:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, Rushdoony = blowing my mind. I wish they'd spend more time telling the reader why their presumptions make sense in the first place and what distinguishes presupp from blind faith. Oh here we go. Frame arguing presupp is different than fedeism. My head spinning from the fail logic and nonsense. No wonder credulous people get cowed by this shit. It's confusing.
- I have been pretty heavy into religious studies this semester. i9 19:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've been reading on presuppositionalism. I want to better understand the broad appeal of purely presupp apologetics, vs. the hybrid advocated by the likes of Carnell, Pinnock, among contemporary Calvinists. I'm particularly interested in the political ramifications of presupp and the problem of getting people to not only vote against their own economic interests but vigorously advocate lies through the lens of the "Christian worldview." Thanks for the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy link - I'll have a look.
Conservapedia Deletionpedia (another attempt)[edit]
- This discussion was moved to [[Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?#Conservapedia Deletionpedia (another_attempt)|Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?#Conservapedia Deletionpedia (another_attempt)]].00:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Category adjustment[edit]
For the past few days I've been improving our categories - making the really general ones like category:history into subdivided meta-cats (creating category:Russian history, for example). Does anyone have an issue with this? Human has told me to ask for community input here. Blue (pester) 04:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- One minor hard part for some of us might be that we don't really know those new cats exist - will someone keep maintaining this subdivision into more specific categories as time goes by? Like I don't know what any of the new subcats are, I would just cat as "politics" and not know - is it US politics? UK politics? European politics? North American politics? Etc. Of course, I usually preview cats I add, until they turn blue, but not knowing what I am looking for might be an issue. ħuman 04:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you could look at cat:politics and try to find an appropriate one. I believe they're intuitive (European history, United States history, Russian history). I don't see myself leaving RW anytime soon, and I'll maintain them if nobody else will. Blue (pester) 05:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- This might be an interesting time to ask: "What is the purpose of categories?" OK, so they help to "organise the wiki" - but what I mean is do many people actually use them in any meaningful way when navigating the wiki? If people do use them, then does creating sub-categories help in their use?--BobSpring is sprung! 06:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Good question. Also, a help page on this might be a good idea? History by nation, politics by continent (? I know I saw "Asian" something ?), etc., so people can get up to speed in a hurry if they want to? ħuman 06:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I use categories to look for similar articles, and get diverted into interesting side alleys. Categories are good. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- How about a giant category tree split up into subdivisions on the Help:Categories page? That would make it easier to "get up to speed." Blue (pester) 23:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- That could be tough, since they are more like a net than a tree. But I see no problem with, say, a list of "supercats" as a way to look for the one one wants. ħuman 00:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- That could be tough, since they are more like a net than a tree. But I see no problem with, say, a list of "supercats" as a way to look for the one one wants. ħuman
- How about a giant category tree split up into subdivisions on the Help:Categories page? That would make it easier to "get up to speed." Blue (pester) 23:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I use categories to look for similar articles, and get diverted into interesting side alleys. Categories are good. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Good question. Also, a help page on this might be a good idea? History by nation, politics by continent (? I know I saw "Asian" something ?), etc., so people can get up to speed in a hurry if they want to? ħuman
- This might be an interesting time to ask: "What is the purpose of categories?" OK, so they help to "organise the wiki" - but what I mean is do many people actually use them in any meaningful way when navigating the wiki? If people do use them, then does creating sub-categories help in their use?--BobSpring is sprung! 06:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you could look at cat:politics and try to find an appropriate one. I believe they're intuitive (European history, United States history, Russian history). I don't see myself leaving RW anytime soon, and I'll maintain them if nobody else will. Blue (pester) 05:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, this seems to be a highly controversial topic that everyone wants to talk about...</sarc> So can I continue to do the categories? Blue (pester) 21:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Moral atheism[edit]
Religious people often see morality as one domain that they can really claim as their own. 14:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I think he's talking more moral science than atheism, but it's definitely true that if the meme about religions holding a monopoly on morality disappeared, religions themselves would quickly disappear too. d hominem 14:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- http://irregularwebcomic.net/1609.html read the annotation. Tyrannis (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is no morality in Religion. The religous are just following orders.--AMassiveGay (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Commandments from God or Jesus (and other deities) in effect only carry weight if they are backed up by the threat of hell (which is just the direct counterpart to the reward of heaven). So I have always been a little bit frightened by religious people who say that it is the threat of hell that keeps them from committing murder, rape and theft. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 15:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I know that's an old argument, but it's still one I haven't heard a respectable answer to. I'm certainly a little worried around people who say their morality only comes from the Invisible Sky Monster. d hominem 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's a miniscule step from "God tells me not to do it" to "God told me to do it". ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 16:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I'd contest whether it's a miniscule step, small and easily taken with some people, but I don't think people specifically think "God is telling me to not do this". If anything, it will be that the priests and holy books are saying what not to do - voices going off inside someone's head saying to do things is a slightly bigger leap. d hominem 18:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I apologise it was hyperbole. But it is a step that some people seem to take very easily, either in their opposition to something like abortion or in war where an enemy population somehow become less than human. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 20:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I apologise it was hyperbole. But it is a step that some people seem to take very easily, either in their opposition to something like abortion or in war where an enemy population somehow become less than human.
- Hmmm... I'd contest whether it's a miniscule step, small and easily taken with some people, but I don't think people specifically think "God is telling me to not do this". If anything, it will be that the priests and holy books are saying what not to do - voices going off inside someone's head saying to do things is a slightly bigger leap.
- It's a miniscule step from "God tells me not to do it" to "God told me to do it".
- I know that's an old argument, but it's still one I haven't heard a respectable answer to. I'm certainly a little worried around people who say their morality only comes from the Invisible Sky Monster.
- Commandments from God or Jesus (and other deities) in effect only carry weight if they are backed up by the threat of hell (which is just the direct counterpart to the reward of heaven). So I have always been a little bit frightened by religious people who say that it is the threat of hell that keeps them from committing murder, rape and theft.
- http://irregularwebcomic.net/1609.html read the annotation. Tyrannis (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
How long are there sections up anyway?[edit]
I understand that content on Wikepedia's Help Desk and Reference Desk is up for a week. My original CP DP (see above sub-section) was up for about 3.84 days.Civic Cat (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you look at the archive template located at the very top of the page when edited, you'll see that sections are archived once no one has posted for 48 hours. ~SuperHamster Talk 19:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- You mean this "|algo = old(48h)" thing?Civic Cat (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yep; placing the template on a talk page causes Pibot to come along and archive any discussions that haven't been discussed for more than a specified time period. Wikipedia employs a similar system on many of its talk and discussion pages, with exceptions such as those that you listed. ~SuperHamster Talk 22:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. WP waits for a week. RW waits 48 hours for a response.Civic Cat (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- The section was responded to - mostly with yawns, then it was ignored, and got archived. ħuman 02:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- The section was responded to - mostly with yawns, then it was ignored, and got archived. ħuman
- Not exactly - different pages archive differently on Wikipedia. Discussions at the reference desk are archived after one week, regardless of the last time someone posted on a discussion. It isn't based on activity. That is unlike, for example, the Administrators' noticeboard of incidents, in which any discussion that hasn't been active for a mere 24 hours is automatically archived. ~SuperHamster Talk 23:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- The saloon bar is archived frequently because it gets huge fast. Use the forum for longer discussions. -- Nx / talk 23:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip Nx.
Human, sorry I bored you and SusanG. :-/
("Oh deah me, that Civet Cat has another post yammering on about CP and his deleted articles. Oh please shoot me before I suffer any more dreariness from him." "Don't worry, RW'ian brother/sister, he'll soon tired of our condensension and scamper away.") Civic Cat (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)- FFS dude, get over yourself & stop bringing the butthurt. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 17:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- First it was brainfarts. Now FFS and butthurt. Got anymore Weaseloid?Civic Cat (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
If I see that fucking cat one more time . . . WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- First it was brainfarts. Now FFS and butthurt. Got anymore Weaseloid?Civic Cat (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- FFS dude, get over yourself & stop bringing the butthurt. Wēāŝēīōīď
- Thanks for the tip Nx.
- The saloon bar is archived frequently because it gets huge fast. Use the forum for longer discussions. -- Nx / talk 23:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. WP waits for a week. RW waits 48 hours for a response.Civic Cat (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yep; placing the template on a talk page causes Pibot to come along and archive any discussions that haven't been discussed for more than a specified time period. Wikipedia employs a similar system on many of its talk and discussion pages, with exceptions such as those that you listed. ~SuperHamster Talk 22:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- You mean this "|algo = old(48h)" thing?Civic Cat (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Apparently yesterday [sic] was Trafalgar Day[edit]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crosswords/cryptic/25147
That is all. ħuman 03:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Kiss me, Human. (just getting into the spirit of things) --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 10:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Do you Americans not celebrate it then? ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Lol, no. I stared at that puzzle for hours before I noticed the "special instruction". Had to look up Oct 21 on WP, as soon as I pipped the T.D. thing I got about 8 clues in rapid succession. Too bad the articles on Trafalgar and Nelson are so damn long! I'm having to read them while keeping all the related clues in my head in case I come across a solution... ħuman 19:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Lol, no. I stared at that puzzle for hours before I noticed the "special instruction". Had to look up Oct 21 on WP, as soon as I pipped the T.D. thing I got about 8 clues in rapid succession. Too bad the articles on Trafalgar and Nelson are so damn long! I'm having to read them while keeping all the related clues in my head in case I come across a solution... ħuman
- Do you Americans not celebrate it then?
Psychiatrists Observe Glenn Beck (but not in the way we hope)[edit]
But not in they way we hope--Thanatos (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Surely this should least be mentioned if not covered in depth at Glenn Beck? Nice find. ħuman 06:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Is it just me or is Beck starting to turn into a parody of himself? Or just trying to experiment with combining Lewis Prothero and Howard Beale. d hominem 18:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Is it just me or is Beck starting to turn into a parody of himself? Or just trying to experiment with combining Lewis Prothero and Howard Beale.
The more things change...[edit]
the more they say the same CS Miller (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can no longer look at political cartoons without thinking of this. d hominem 18:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Beck is Obsessed With Star Wars[edit]
First of all, there is that bullshit plan to get by airport security in the Overton Window, then he calls George Soros EmperorPalpatine, then he likens himself to Obi-Wan Kenobi, now he is talking about a Death Star. All of this, except the Overton Window, is within the last Week. Methinks he had a little movie marathon--Thanatos (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Opal's Bar[edit]
For those of you who were here about a year ago, and remember me, you may, (or may not) be glad to now that I am back online, and should be for awhile. OpalHonors (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Audio editing software[edit]
Hey, anybody have any good audio editing software out there? Specifically, I'm looking for something like Garage Band or there abouts, something with an Auto tune feature (or plug in available) would be best... I don't mind paying, but free is obviously better. Thanks. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 06:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Audacity is probably your best bet as far as free audio editing software goes. That and Garageband are both pretty crude tools, depending on how professional you need your stuff to be. Professional software I use and would recommend would be Logic Pro (v9 most recent) or Pro Tools. If you don't fancy forking out the $400 for Logic Pro, you can get the basic package Logic Express for around $100. Reason is a great sampling programme, but not really for recording. SJ Debaser 15:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- GarageBand is remarkably competent in my opinion. If Chuck has a midi keyboard and GarageBand he can do everything he just said he wants even if GarageBand is real weak on editing. Ableton Live is fantastic for building beats and has autotune. The lite version that comes with some midi keyboards might do everything you want. The full version costs are $450. It's suited to sampling, recording, production. Fine for editing but Logic Pro is tons better. 15:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've got Audacity, but haven't got round to using it properly yet - I'm not sure if it has anything like Auto-Tune. d hominem 15:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- (ec'd again!) It depends on what you want to do. All that have been mentioned are good. To that I'd add SoundForge, if you're just tweaking samples. Acid (or the free Acid Xpress) is a nifty compiler, with built in midi keyboard & VST capability. Diito Cubase. Reason is also pretty damn impressive (altho haven't seen reason 5 yet). Stay away from FruityLoops, that's the devil's software. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I use a combination of Making Waves and Adobe Audition. i9 19:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I guy I lived next door to in my first year had FruityLoops and was constantly making psytrance tracks - and the software is pretty damn good for that sort of thing. Which was kind of cool, except he also insisted on doing it at odd hours in the morning and night at full fucking volumne. He was also a bassist in an Extreme Black Metal band... go figure. I remember using Reason back in my dance music days (ah, High School, once the operation to permanently remove memories becomes available on the NHS...) but never really did much impressive with it as I just did some tweaking with the tools while a fellow music student did the compositions. I don't think either piece of software is good for vocal processing, they're both purely dance-orientated compositional tools really. d hominem 15:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I guy I lived next door to in my first year had FruityLoops and was constantly making psytrance tracks - and the software is pretty damn good for that sort of thing. Which was kind of cool, except he also insisted on doing it at odd hours in the morning and night at full fucking volumne. He was also a bassist in an Extreme Black Metal band... go figure. I remember using Reason back in my dance music days (ah, High School, once the operation to permanently remove memories becomes available on the NHS...) but never really did much impressive with it as I just did some tweaking with the tools while a fellow music student did the compositions. I don't think either piece of software is good for vocal processing, they're both purely dance-orientated compositional tools really.
- I use a combination of Making Waves and Adobe Audition. i9 19:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- (ec'd again!) It depends on what you want to do. All that have been mentioned are good. To that I'd add SoundForge, if you're just tweaking samples. Acid (or the free Acid Xpress) is a nifty compiler, with built in midi keyboard & VST capability. Diito Cubase. Reason is also pretty damn impressive (altho haven't seen reason 5 yet). Stay away from FruityLoops, that's the devil's software. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've got Audacity, but haven't got round to using it properly yet - I'm not sure if it has anything like Auto-Tune.
- GarageBand is remarkably competent in my opinion. If Chuck has a midi keyboard and GarageBand he can do everything he just said he wants even if GarageBand is real weak on editing. Ableton Live is fantastic for building beats and has autotune. The lite version that comes with some midi keyboards might do everything you want. The full version costs are $450. It's suited to sampling, recording, production. Fine for editing but Logic Pro is tons better.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![edit]
The Velvet fucking Underground I can't stand it! AAAAAAAA!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! Totnesmartin (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fuck her. I'm going to pretend that only Lou Reed and John Cale were ever in VU. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Meh. Overrated band anyway. DickTurpis (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Your punishment for saying that will be that Nico will sing to you for all eternity in the afterlife. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Anyone who thinks I'm crazy about Sarah Palin, Bush, etc. has made quite the presumption."
"To be honest, I never paid attention to what the hell was going on. My always voting Democrat was the result of that. My philosophy was and is all politicians are liars, bums and cheats. I make decisions on an issue by issue basis. I'm far more of an independent than a conservative or liberal. I don't agree with all of either side, and I think anyone who claims to is either a fool or a damn liar."
"I'm stunned that so many people who call themselves liberal yet are completely intolerant. I thought liberals loved everyone: the poor, the immigrant, the gays, the handicapped, the minorities, dogs, cats, all eye colors, all hair colors! Peace, love, bull! Curious they have no tolerance whatsoever for anyone who doesn't think exactly as they do. You disagree and you're immediately called a fool, a Nazi, a racist. That's pretty f'd up!! I would never judge someone based on their political views. Their honesty, integrity, kindness to others, generosity? Yes. Politics? No!"
Interviews.
Nonetheless, her words might haunt her. A bigger idiot was Neil Young. VU were great. No more over-rated than the Doors.Civic Cat (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)- Nowhere near as overrated as the Doors. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ain't that the truth. Though, I liked them. It was the ridiculous "Jim's a POET" schtick that was really bollocks. Anyway, ya boo sucks to Mo Tucker, the old cow. I always hated her drumming anyway. DogPMarmite Patrol 21:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- This only proves the old saying "Unless playing, drummers are meant to be seen, not heard." Other than that, I don't mind too much. Remember, Johnny Ramone was a hardcore Republican, too. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 21:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- True, true. Drummers, thick as planks anyway. Now, Neil Young is not a big idiot, but a very talented chap indeed, and I won't have any truck with those who don't like him. I just won't. DogPMarmite Patrol 04:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fuck the Velvet Underground and their political leanings. Mark my words, I am going to kill every member of Kings of Leon. i9 04:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ain't that the truth. Everytime I hear "Whoaaaaaaoaaaaoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! This sex is on fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieyeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeee!" my balls jump back into their body in fright and I have to go outside to try and coax them back down. One time a bobby saw me and I nearly got arrested. SJ Debaser 09:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- You keep your balls in another body? --PsyGremlinParla! 10:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I never got them back off my ex. SJ Debaser 10:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Neil Young was great....25 years ago. Was Joey as big a Bush cheerleader as Neil? As for drummers, what about Bill Bruford, Neil Peart, Phil, and Dave. Mind you, compared to them, Mo's drumming is/was as good as her political stances.Civic Cat (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Which of these inspirations/parodies of The Doors do you favour?
"Weird Al" Yankovic - Craigslist
The Tea Party - The River ((my fav Tea Party vids are Sister Awake and Heaven Coming Down), or
The Cult Coming Down?Civic Cat (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)- Weird Al's has a lot of cred, what with using Ray Manzarek on keyboards. That said, I'm glad the Tea Party was also aware of just how much he sounds like Jim... --
YossarianThe Man from the USSR 21:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Weird Al's has a lot of cred, what with using Ray Manzarek on keyboards. That said, I'm glad the Tea Party was also aware of just how much he sounds like Jim... --
- Which of these inspirations/parodies of The Doors do you favour?
- Neil Young was great....25 years ago. Was Joey as big a Bush cheerleader as Neil? As for drummers, what about Bill Bruford, Neil Peart, Phil, and Dave. Mind you, compared to them, Mo's drumming is/was as good as her political stances.Civic Cat (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I never got them back off my ex. SJ Debaser 10:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- You keep your balls in another body? --PsyGremlinParla! 10:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ain't that the truth. Everytime I hear "Whoaaaaaaoaaaaoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! This sex is on fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieyeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeee!" my balls jump back into their body in fright and I have to go outside to try and coax them back down. One time a bobby saw me and I nearly got arrested. SJ Debaser 09:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fuck the Velvet Underground and their political leanings. Mark my words, I am going to kill every member of Kings of Leon. i9 04:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- True, true. Drummers, thick as planks anyway. Now, Neil Young is not a big idiot, but a very talented chap indeed, and I won't have any truck with those who don't like him. I just won't. DogPMarmite Patrol 04:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- This only proves the old saying "Unless playing, drummers are meant to be seen, not heard." Other than that, I don't mind too much. Remember, Johnny Ramone was a hardcore Republican, too. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 21:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ain't that the truth. Though, I liked them. It was the ridiculous "Jim's a POET" schtick that was really bollocks. Anyway, ya boo sucks to Mo Tucker, the old cow. I always hated her drumming anyway. DogPMarmite Patrol 21:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nowhere near as overrated as the Doors. Wēāŝēīōīď
- "Anyone who thinks I'm crazy about Sarah Palin, Bush, etc. has made quite the presumption."
- Your punishment for saying that will be that Nico will sing to you for all eternity in the afterlife. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Meh. Overrated band anyway. DickTurpis (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Power woo[edit]
This came up as a FB ad - Magniwork. And you know the old saying 'If it looks too good to be true..." Any technical bofs here want to have a look and do a write up? --PsyGremlinSprich! 10:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just skimming it, I see (emphasis added)
A Zero point magnetic power generator is basically a Free Energy Generator. It uses magnets, and magnetic force to induce perpetual motion. It runs by itself, indefinitely without stopping, thus creating completely free electrical energy, which can fully power your home for free. A Perpetual motion device refers to a machine that runs perpetually i.e. indefinitely, and produces a larger amount of energy than it consumes. Thus, it produces free energy indefinitely, runs by itself, without having to need a third-party device or resource to power it.
- They're claiming perpetual motion. They fail thermodynamics forever. (Specifically, the Second Law.)
- But really, you have to quote America's Greatest Living Philosopher here...
- Disclaimer: I probably should have failed thermodynamics forever, (thermo for non-mechanical engineering majors is pure hell, just like all engineering courses for non-majors are hell) but I do know perpetual machine is impossible. MDB (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I had a relative who almost fell for this one. It's simply a scam. Nothing really to write up. Most of the "instruction manual" is how to save energy through insulation and so on. The actual device is a small electrical generator that doesn't seem to do anything other than generate electricity from, well, electricity... Ajkgordon (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- We could well cite the xkcd mentioned somewhere above. The last comment reminds me of something in a humorous zine a friend wrote years ago in which he did a piece on plug-in electric generators. I found it hilarious. DickTurpis (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Aren't the public utility company (Big corporations) the ones to tell us to save electricity by using less? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it makes them look nicer, and also, more importantly, helps them avoid having to engage in politically difficult and costly building of more generation capacity. ħuman 04:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that ten years or so ago some large utility co. in north-east US actually gave away low-energy light bulbs to all their customers in order to avoid capital investment in a new power station. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 13:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Maine's is pretty aggressive, as I suspect is Boston Edison. I bet VT's is as well. PSNH not so much, but they try a little. But yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I mean. One of them used to (may still) give away water heater blankets. ħuman 21:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Maine's is pretty aggressive, as I suspect is Boston Edison. I bet VT's is as well. PSNH not so much, but they try a little. But yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I mean. One of them used to (may still) give away water heater blankets. ħuman
- I'm pretty sure that ten years or so ago some large utility co. in north-east US actually gave away low-energy light bulbs to all their customers in order to avoid capital investment in a new power station.
- Yes, it makes them look nicer, and also, more importantly, helps them avoid having to engage in politically difficult and costly building of more generation capacity. ħuman
- Aren't the public utility company (Big corporations) the ones to tell us to save electricity by using less? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- We could well cite the xkcd mentioned somewhere above. The last comment reminds me of something in a humorous zine a friend wrote years ago in which he did a piece on plug-in electric generators. I found it hilarious. DickTurpis (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I had a relative who almost fell for this one. It's simply a scam. Nothing really to write up. Most of the "instruction manual" is how to save energy through insulation and so on. The actual device is a small electrical generator that doesn't seem to do anything other than generate electricity from, well, electricity... Ajkgordon (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Disclaimer: I probably should have failed thermodynamics forever, (thermo for non-mechanical engineering majors is pure hell, just like all engineering courses for non-majors are hell) but I do know perpetual machine is impossible. MDB (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Can't you [Westerners] keep your [woo] in your own patch?[edit]
(section title inspired by another discussion from the previous few days)
I saw a billboard advertising the Powerbalance bracelet. Apparently, they have crept in here sometime this year: http://www.powerbalance.bg/ :(
Should I take a picture (of the billboard) and upload it to illustrate the spread of woo, or it's not worth the effort? --ZooGuard (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that Bulgarian text is like half Greek to me. 12:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is a thingie on the top right, you know. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's pretty much the standard Power Balance website, down to the design, but in Bulgarian. Very thorough, very professional corporate approach. :( 0It even has a gallery of local celebrity
suckers"fans": [1] --ZooGuard (talk) 08:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Alright now listen[edit]
It's only 9:39am here, early enough for an Ace sermon I think. My fingers don't work properly yet for some reason my head is throbbing. Why I can't have both I don't know but that, my friends, causes the world to turn and the firmament to remain grounded. I am really tempted to whack some beer up despite the early hour but not sure my gut will handle foamy froth right now - what we need is strong liquor and cigarettes. Despite my vague notions of drinking I know that I have chores to fulfill today, I made some promises and damnit I must keep them. Nonetheless it is tempting to barricade myself indoors today. While I live in the central city my house is at the end of a long dirt path, a path which is almost invisible to those who don't know where to look. Surrounded by trees and bushes you wouldn't even know my house existed despite being 2 minutes walk from a busy highway onramp. I lack a phone, both in home and mobile, so I am truly cut off. Unreachable and detached from bad noise, responsibilties and useless fucks who serve only to delay and disrupt. Shit, I really could bang up some plywood against the windows, push the dresser against the door and indulge myself in some black magic, pray to some long forgotten gods and get filthed up without anyone being the wiser.
What is this black magic talk? Why stray down the path of least resistence already? My day hasn't even started yet these darkened thoughts rise unbiden from my pulsating hippocampus. Electrifing the frontal lobe with nasty ideas.
Despite my best intentions, beer bubbles forth as surely as the tide rises. i9 20:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- None of you fuckers listened to fucking thing. My god(s) have mercy on your fucking turbid souls. i9 02:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I did read it, I just couldn't think of an appropriate response. Tetronian you're clueless 04:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I did and can. Fuck off you fucking fucker, you fuck, you. Fuck you. ħuman 04:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I did and can. Fuck off you fucking fucker, you fuck, you. Fuck you. ħuman
- I did read it, I just couldn't think of an appropriate response. Tetronian you're clueless 04:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I am sooo Rock n Roll[edit]
Its a quarter past one in the morning here in blighty at the start of weekend, and I have just done the Daily Mail crossword. Live fast, die young is my motto. Dunno how tough the DM's crossword is in the scheme of things, but I'm quite chuffed with myself.--AMassiveGay (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. --I'm bored (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- First of all you should be embarassed at mentioning the Daily Fail here, and secondly it's not as tough as the Indy/Grauniad/Times/Torygraph/FT - I know because my father used to ask me what some of the answers were. But hey, looking on the bright side, it's a promising start and it's not The Sun. I would recommend something like Secrets of the Setters and How to Solve Cryptic Crosswords to get you started on serious crosswords. It's also amazing how you can often do crosswords in your sleep. A tricky clue will somehow reveal itself the next morning. Two essentials for crosswords; a large vocabulary and being able to spell correctly. It also helps if you like puns. Many of people I know who have retained their faculties well into their old age are regular crossword addicts. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 09:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding sleep, yes, I've noticed that since doing ten-day "take home" physics tests in college. I'd lay out all the bits of leather, and the elves would solve the shoes while I slept. But what's funnier is trying to solve clues one has made up in dreams. Talk about your genuine nonsense! It makes me wonder if any combination of two or more words could possibly lead to a real word via Ximenian decrypting... oh, and a good site for puzzle solutions, explanations and discussion is fifteensquared. ħuman 21:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding sleep, yes, I've noticed that since doing ten-day "take home" physics tests in college. I'd lay out all the bits of leather, and the elves would solve the shoes while I slept. But what's funnier is trying to solve clues one has made up in dreams. Talk about your genuine nonsense! It makes me wonder if any combination of two or more words could possibly lead to a real word via Ximenian decrypting... oh, and a good site for puzzle solutions, explanations and discussion is fifteensquared. ħuman
- In my defence, I didn't buy or normally buy the Daily Mail. It came free with my tesco delivery.--AMassiveGay (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- As did the porn videos. --I'm bored (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's a slur against my good name. I paid good money for those.--AMassiveGay (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- In which case you should always proffer some good excuse for why you happened to be reading the DM: somebody left it on the train ,or it was the only one left in the coffee bar, etc. I tend to come across it where newspapers are supplied for customers and then just read it to confirm my prejudice of why I would never buy it (unless it came with some incredible freeby). ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 12:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I used to get it because it was the one that took me the longest to read; hence it was good value for money (and in fairness, it does give away the most kick-ass freebies, most of my classic rock collection is composed of free Daily Mail CDs, you wouldn't get that in the Guardian). It also enabled me to watch first hand their slow shuffle further and further to the Right to eventually become a parody of itself. d hominem 15:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I used to get it because it was the one that took me the longest to read; hence it was good value for money (and in fairness, it does give away the most kick-ass freebies, most of my classic rock collection is composed of free Daily Mail CDs, you wouldn't get that in the Guardian). It also enabled me to watch first hand their slow shuffle further and further to the Right to eventually become a parody of itself.
- In which case you should always proffer some good excuse for why you happened to be reading the DM: somebody left it on the train ,or it was the only one left in the coffee bar, etc. I tend to come across it where newspapers are supplied for customers and then just read it to confirm my prejudice of why I would never buy it (unless it came with some incredible freeby).
- That's a slur against my good name. I paid good money for those.--AMassiveGay (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- As did the porn videos. --I'm bored (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- First of all you should be embarassed at mentioning the Daily Fail here, and secondly it's not as tough as the Indy/Grauniad/Times/Torygraph/FT - I know because my father used to ask me what some of the answers were. But hey, looking on the bright side, it's a promising start and it's not The Sun. I would recommend something like Secrets of the Setters and How to Solve Cryptic Crosswords to get you started on serious crosswords. It's also amazing how you can often do crosswords in your sleep. A tricky clue will somehow reveal itself the next morning. Two essentials for crosswords; a large vocabulary and being able to spell correctly. It also helps if you like puns. Many of people I know who have retained their faculties well into their old age are regular crossword addicts.
Anyone think we should bother starting a forum for random crossword discussion (with a no spoilers rule!)? ħuman 21:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly the ability to solve cryptic Xwords was a requirement for staff @ Bletchley Park. 22:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- One of them went on to set puzzles for The Nation for the next 60-odd years. I hope there is a "younger" generation of setters coming up to replace the likes of Araucaria. I remember a couple Thanksgivings ago, my neighbor's mum was doing a nice NYT "quick" puzzle (many answers were constructed out of pairs of anagrams), and I mentioned cryptics to her... her response was "I tried one of those once, but all you get for cross-letters are Es and As!" - which is one way I verify an answer - if every checked square is yet another damn vowel. ħuman 22:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- One of them went on to set puzzles for The Nation for the next 60-odd years. I hope there is a "younger" generation of setters coming up to replace the likes of Araucaria. I remember a couple Thanksgivings ago, my neighbor's mum was doing a nice NYT "quick" puzzle (many answers were constructed out of pairs of anagrams), and I mentioned cryptics to her... her response was "I tried one of those once, but all you get for cross-letters are Es and As!" - which is one way I verify an answer - if every checked square is yet another damn vowel. ħuman
Facebook engineering[edit]
I've ended up subscribing (liking, whatever) to the technical pages for Facebook, the engineering and security ones namely. It's very interesting reading but that's not what struck me. I also followed the general Facebook page and decided to compare comments on the various posts. The comments on posts from the Facebook Engineering page are, generally speaking, on topic, well written, nicely informed and so on. Basically, readable and positive. The ones for the general Facebook page are all completely retarded. I mean, really, really fucking retarded, like "help i got my cock stuck in a lettuce what do i do???" levels of fucktarded and that's after adjusting for and ignoring the spam. The other point, "Facebook" has over 24,000,000 people, "Facebook Engineering" a mere 217,000...
I'm developing a superiority complex. But is it my fault when 95% of the world seem to need elastic bands put around their hands so they can clap? When I rule the world, the Internet will NOT be a human right, it'll require passing an IQ test. In fact, no, we'll make it simpler. I'll tell a racist joke, if they sigh and begrudgingly admit it's funny for the wrong reasons, they can have broadband, if they laugh, they can have dial up, if they say "lol" I shoot them. d hominem 01:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- "FACEBOOK,,GIVE ME AN ERROL,,WILE MY COLECTIVLE WAS IN PROGRESS AND I LOST IT,,CAN YOU HELP ME RECOVER MY 2 COLECTIVLE THANKS" d hominem 01:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Hello wtf!??!!?! now we can't look for friends on here w/o our personal email address. whut the phuck fb. I'm looking for someone but they aren't on my email address or I wouldn't be looking for them in phucking fb. dirtry rotten hore. why u gotta change shet that made ur phuckin social site the great thing it is known for, networking." d hominem 01:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- There'd be nowt on the internet if you prevented access to halfwits.--AMassiveGay (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- C'mon Armond, you've been on the net long enough to realise that stupid people dwarf geniuses like us. The ones that get under my skin are the overtly racism Fbk pages proclaiming to be English and British nationalist. Especially all the ones about England flags/shirts over summer. SJ Debaser 09:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I know, but it's still very depressing. Not least because I feel like a complete douche saying "hey, look, I'm just smarter than everyone, right!" but all evidence points that way. d hominem 11:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Stupidity is pretty much everywhere you look and is the penalty we pay for democracy. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 12:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Stupidity is pretty much everywhere you look and is the penalty we pay for democracy.
- I know, but it's still very depressing. Not least because I feel like a complete douche saying "hey, look, I'm just smarter than everyone, right!" but all evidence points that way.
- C'mon Armond, you've been on the net long enough to realise that stupid people dwarf geniuses like us. The ones that get under my skin are the overtly racism Fbk pages proclaiming to be English and British nationalist. Especially all the ones about England flags/shirts over summer. SJ Debaser 09:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- There'd be nowt on the internet if you prevented access to halfwits.--AMassiveGay (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Hello wtf!??!!?! now we can't look for friends on here w/o our personal email address. whut the phuck fb. I'm looking for someone but they aren't on my email address or I wouldn't be looking for them in phucking fb. dirtry rotten hore. why u gotta change shet that made ur phuckin social site the great thing it is known for, networking."
Rationalwiki Wigo[edit]
Anyone feel like we need a wigo for rationalwiki. alot of funny shit goes on here that is unnoticed--BenB (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- http://rationalwikiwiki.org/wiki/What_is_going_on_at_RationalWiki%3F Blue (pester) 05:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, but that's the bitchy, moany version and rarely gets updated enough to bother with. You can find the on-site prototype here. d hominem 11:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Snarky (bitchy, moany) is how WIGOs are supposed to be. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 11:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Although it would be useful to keep track of things happening. d hominem 12:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Although it would be useful to keep track of things happening.
- Snarky (bitchy, moany) is how WIGOs are supposed to be. Wēāŝēīōīď
- Yeah, but that's the bitchy, moany version and rarely gets updated enough to bother with. You can find the on-site prototype here.
Teacher gets Rickrolled[edit]
This made me laugh. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Me too. How droll. ħuman 10:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Interesting link[edit]
You're only 10% you Hat tip. Says nothing new but I found it interesting. 13:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Makes me think we could just be elaborate and expensive carries for bacteria, who are really the masters of the evolutionary universe. Like, imagine the Singularity, should it ever occur. The computers will be smarter, better and faster, but we'd still be their creators and directors, but looking like insignificant bacteria supported by them from the outside... anyway, just an obscure thought. d hominem 13:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wired had this several years ago and is one of the reasons the Human Microbiome Project was set up. It has a lot of implications for what it really means to be human, especially for the creationists who insist on the specialness of humankind. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 15:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Amazing stuff. Deeply awesome (in the proper sense of the word).
- My eldest son, a marine biology masters student in Faro, Portugal, told me the other day that he feels a sense of heightened awe almost constantly. He really does get the hairs on the back of his neck rising every time he enters the lab, dons a wetsuit, or simply reads an academic paper. Lucky bastard! Ajkgordon (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't that what great science is all about? Lily Inspirate me. 19:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes thank you please. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's actually what life is all about. Trouble is the sense of wonder is what leads to IDiots & their ilk seeing things that ain't there. 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. I think that IDers and Creationists lack a sense of wonder. They have a lack of imagination so resort to easy to digest 6,000 years old, magic, a big bearded bloke in the sky using celestial CAD/CAM software to build blueprints for the eye. They can only equate what happens in the natural world with the human experience and so essentially anthropomorphise God. It's quite the opposite of wonder, IMHO. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, we're agreeing actually. The IDers etc wonder and don't carry it any further - the just ascribe it to sundry magics. The scientists (for the purpose of this argument I include myself
) Wonder how it works 20:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, we're agreeing actually. The IDers etc wonder and don't carry it any further - the just ascribe it to sundry magics. The scientists (for the purpose of this argument I include myself
- I disagree. I think that IDers and Creationists lack a sense of wonder. They have a lack of imagination so resort to easy to digest 6,000 years old, magic, a big bearded bloke in the sky using celestial CAD/CAM software to build blueprints for the eye. They can only equate what happens in the natural world with the human experience and so essentially anthropomorphise God. It's quite the opposite of wonder, IMHO. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's actually what life is all about. Trouble is the sense of wonder is what leads to IDiots & their ilk seeing things that ain't there. 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes thank you please. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't that what great science is all about? Lily Inspirate me. 19:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Good article, but why do people write cringe-worthy things like this "The farther away from the common ancestor, generally speaking, the more complex the life-form, with humans at the apex of complexity."? ħuman 21:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- But aren't you at the apex of complexity, Human? WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 22:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hehe... I put the "ape" in "apex"! ħuman 23:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hehe... I put the "ape" in "apex"! ħuman
Wikipedia gets the most interesting idiots[edit]
I clicked through to the wikipedia help desk to check out the latest Weird Ed Moon WIGO. The WIGO wasn't so interesting, but some of the other stuff posted on the helpdesk was hilarious.
- This illiterate should never be allowed to own a gun of any sort. This one kind of scares me.
- This guy seems to be labouring under the delusion he brought a watch from Wikipedia. Does Jimbo Wales sidle up to people and ask them if they want to buy knockoff rolexes?
- Wikipedia also does wrongful dismissal suits for Nigerian ex-squadies. They sure get around.
- Plus, of course, the inevitable do my homework for me requests.
And I thought creationists were idiots. Where do they find all these people? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect 2 and 3 are spambots. Evil time Hoover! 18:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- You might have a point, but where's the spam? I'm reasonably sure 3 is from a real human idiot, and while watches are a major spam subject 2 still seems to be genuine. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if the fact the watch one provoked a serious response is actually more retarded than the original post... d hominem 18:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- From what I've seen, they respond politely and seriously no matter how strange a post is. ħuman 20:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- The response to the watch one isn't serious - it's a pre-made template that is used for stupid questions. It sounds all kind and sincere, but like Andy's use of Godspeed, it translates into "GTFO moron". ~SuperHamster Talk 22:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Since #2 & #3 got an identical answer, it's clearly a template response rather than a "serious" one. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 22:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, yes, but it still reads like a polite and serious response. ħuman 22:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, yes, but it still reads like a polite and serious response. ħuman
- Since #2 & #3 got an identical answer, it's clearly a template response rather than a "serious" one. Wēāŝēīōīď
- The response to the watch one isn't serious - it's a pre-made template that is used for stupid questions. It sounds all kind and sincere, but like Andy's use of Godspeed, it translates into "GTFO moron". ~SuperHamster Talk 22:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- From what I've seen, they respond politely and seriously no matter how strange a post is. ħuman
- I'm wondering if the fact the watch one provoked a serious response is actually more retarded than the original post...
- You might have a point, but where's the spam? I'm reasonably sure 3 is from a real human idiot, and while watches are a major spam subject 2 still seems to be genuine. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Glenn Beck[edit]
Glenn Beck was the subject of today's Profile on Radio 4. Lily Inspirate me. 19:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fascinating, actually. d hominem 19:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
DTCC[edit]
Someone elsewhere in the webosphere mentioned this corporation, claiming it has $30,000,000,000,000 in assets, owns effectively all of the stocks in the US and is totally unregulated. The first 2 claims seem to be true, but I haven't found any evidence for the 3rd, and it seems completely unbelievable; could someone who knows about the weird world of money please enlighten me on the matter? Evil time Hoover! 22:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- He's now explained the unregulatedness as the shares having the "owner" as a beneficiary. I have no idea whether that is true. Evil time Hoover! 23:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently they serve to mediate stock transactions efficiently, by holding the paper and keeping track of who owns it electronically. How that leads to assets of $30 trillion I'm not sure, since holding paper that "belongs" to someone else is not a net asset. But maybe that's not how they are calculating it. This all depends on the WP article not having just been rewritten by your blogger, of course. Where are you running into this? ħuman 23:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- On IRC, earlier today, so he definitely hasn't rewritten it. It would appear that shares actually belong to DTCC, rather than them just doing the paperwork (a statement which is backed up by at least 2 independent sources). Evil time Hoover! 23:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- And, in one of those immensely stupid errors that you feel almost lethally embarrassed over, it seems that noöne in the channel noticed that it was 30 billion, not trillion. Words fail me. Evil time Hoover! 23:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Dang, I missed that, too. So their worth is less than 0.1% of the value of the securities they "manage" (40 trillion)? Anyway, that value isn't outrageous - I looked up Boeing and Westinghouse/CBS and they both run $20bn-ish. They probably just own a shitload of fancy buildings and computers and safes in expensive neighborhoods. ħuman 23:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a more meaningful number: "Total equity US $242,920,000". That should = assets minus obligations. ħuman 23:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a more meaningful number: "Total equity US $242,920,000". That should = assets minus obligations. ħuman
- Dang, I missed that, too. So their worth is less than 0.1% of the value of the securities they "manage" (40 trillion)? Anyway, that value isn't outrageous - I looked up Boeing and Westinghouse/CBS and they both run $20bn-ish. They probably just own a shitload of fancy buildings and computers and safes in expensive neighborhoods. ħuman
- Apparently they serve to mediate stock transactions efficiently, by holding the paper and keeping track of who owns it electronically. How that leads to assets of $30 trillion I'm not sure, since holding paper that "belongs" to someone else is not a net asset. But maybe that's not how they are calculating it. This all depends on the WP article not having just been rewritten by your blogger, of course. Where are you running into this? ħuman
More fun numbers - ExxonMobil has assets of 233bn - and equity of 110bn. Five hundred times the equity of the DTCC. ħuman 23:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think I've found the source of the confusion: their annual report states that $30 trillion is the total value of securities held in custody. Someone else seems to have got muddled over this, and the confusion has blossomed from that. Evil time Hoover! 23:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Morons looking for a conspiracy? I suspect so. ħuman 04:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- WP says it is $40 trillion. That they "handle". ħuman 08:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say "morons", but it does have the rationality-diverting property of being dangerously fun to believe which conspiracy theories share. Evil time Hoover! 08:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, "morons" was a poor choice of words. "Credulous" might be better? Egh... ħuman 08:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, "morons" was a poor choice of words. "Credulous" might be better? Egh... ħuman
- I wouldn't say "morons", but it does have the rationality-diverting property of being dangerously fun to believe which conspiracy theories share. Evil time Hoover! 08:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Morons looking for a conspiracy? I suspect so. ħuman
- I think I've found the source of the confusion: their annual report states that $30 trillion is the total value of securities held in custody. Someone else seems to have got muddled over this, and the confusion has blossomed from that. Evil time Hoover! 23:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Colorado governor race[edit]
Tom Tancredo couldn't bully his way into becoming the GOP candidate, and yet he's still in the running. For the love of all that is decent I hope he gets shot down, because I'm not going to be able to handle living in a state he's in charge of. (*grumble*grumble*racisthomophobicfuckhead*grumble*) --Quantheory (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, a fellow Coloradan on RW.... I was beginning to think I was all along out here... I wouldn't worry too much about it though, Tancredo could never carry the Metro area and you can't win an election without it. All he's doing is splitting the GOP voters. I almost want him to win though, he would be the worst governor in the history of the United States (warning: Hyperbole!) and his colossal fuck ups would ensure a long line of Democrats in the office. SirChuckBDMorris for new Jinx! 07:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to think so, but voters seem to have short memories. I'll agree that he's unlikely to win though. It just is so strange to me that he's polling so well. I guess I'm a bit out-of-perspective though. I'm a young'un, so a lot of the more ridiculous election/ballot outcomes here happened before I was really politically motivated (or at least before I could vote myself). --Quantheory (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, at least I know who I'm not voting for. BTW, I live in Broomfield (ok, not exactly-close enough tho). JackalTheRascal! (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to think so, but voters seem to have short memories. I'll agree that he's unlikely to win though. It just is so strange to me that he's polling so well. I guess I'm a bit out-of-perspective though. I'm a young'un, so a lot of the more ridiculous election/ballot outcomes here happened before I was really politically motivated (or at least before I could vote myself). --Quantheory (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Feeling Rough[edit]
Ugh. Third week of this bloody cold, thanks to the MTX, although I'm beginning to think that it's stopped being a cold and is now a chest infection and, on top of that, I've got my DLA renewal forms to fill in. 61 questions on how your illnesses and disabilities impact your care needs, most of which require relatively long and detailed answers. Whoever came up with the DLA claim form needs to be put against a wall and shot, especially as the renewal forms could easily take the form of: "Have your care or mobility needs changed since the last time you claimed? If so please detail below."--
Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 20:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Kill everyone. It'll make you feel better. But seriously I feel your pain and I'll raise you a suspected broken finger I acquired while doing dumb shit last night. Fuckthat 20:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Surely, if it's broken, the last thing you can do is raise it. Oh, I see what you mean. Bummer.-- Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 20:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- what, I have to do it again someday? I put off claiming for three years because of the form... they're made intentionally complex to put people off claiming, I'm sure. After all, that money is desperately needed for Daily Mail readers' skiing holidays. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Goonie just had her appendix out. Damn, it's an epidemic! ħuman 01:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Goonie just had her appendix out. Damn, it's an epidemic! ħuman
- what, I have to do it again someday? I put off claiming for three years because of the form... they're made intentionally complex to put people off claiming, I'm sure. After all, that money is desperately needed for Daily Mail readers' skiing holidays. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Surely, if it's broken, the last thing you can do is raise it. Oh, I see what you mean. Bummer.--
Who does this remind you of?[edit]
Anyone else here a Kids in the Hall fan?--Thanatos (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also Jesus, the Bad Carpenter--Thanatos (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am resisting to the urge the say 'I squash your head'. Quoting TV shows is wrong.--AMassiveGay (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, its "I'm crushing your head"--Thanatos (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, been a while since i seen it.--AMassiveGay (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, its "I'm crushing your head"--Thanatos (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am resisting to the urge the say 'I squash your head'. Quoting TV shows is wrong.--AMassiveGay (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Open for debate[edit]
California's Proposition 19 will, if passed, legalize potmarijuana.
Current polls indicate it will be defeated.
Thoughts?
(I wonder what the poll numbers would be if it was "Proposition 420"...)
MDB (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I hope it passes, but if it does it might actually make possessing pot more problematical. AG Holder has said that the Feds will prosecute recreational pot use if the state doesn't -- something they are currently not doing with "medical" marijuana. If Holder is true to his word, it could, I imagine, have consequences for the medical marijuana industry as well. Hard to say. It is a shame that basically no politicians at any high level can openly endorse this, though I'm sure many are privately supportive. DickTurpis (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- As I understand it, a prescription for medical marijuana in California is... not especially difficult to obtain. You find a sympathetic doctor, complain of chronic (a-hem) pain, and toke up. MDB (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Is quite true. 15:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- If it did pass, would federal agents be milling around California looking for recreational pot smokers? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Purely on instinct, I doubt it. The Feds rarely prosecute for possession as it is. They go after dealers. Even then, they're not looking for the college kids selling a few joints; they're looking for the big distributors.
- If it did pass, would federal agents be milling around California looking for recreational pot smokers? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Is quite true.
- As I understand it, a prescription for medical marijuana in California is... not especially difficult to obtain. You find a sympathetic doctor, complain of chronic (a-hem) pain, and toke up. MDB (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, do you have to be a legal resident of CA to get a prescription? Or could an out of state visitor get one? (And no, I'm not making vacation plans!) MDB (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Feds will prosecute recreational pot use if the state doesn't." Doesn't say much for Obama, huh?Civic Cat (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- They already passed some decriminalization measure. So even if it fails (and the polls are quite divided, and seem to be suffering from a reversed Bradley effect, I read it on Wikipedia) up to an ounce will be a punishment of $100, and off you go. Ann Arbor is like that here in Michigan (where UofM is) and it's always fun to visit friends there. Quarumagma - You can't explain that! 03:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- $100 fine for up to an ounce? I used to work on a Federal installation with lousy parking, but lots of spaces reserved for management with parking permits. The thing was, they only checked for permits about once a month, and the fine was only $25, so a number of people decided that it was worth $25/month just to get a decent parking space. I suspect the same will apply to $100 for an ounce of the ganja. MDB (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- They already passed some decriminalization measure. So even if it fails (and the polls are quite divided, and seem to be suffering from a reversed Bradley effect, I read it on Wikipedia) up to an ounce will be a punishment of $100, and off you go. Ann Arbor is like that here in Michigan (where UofM is) and it's always fun to visit friends there. Quarumagma - You can't explain that! 03:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Feds will prosecute recreational pot use if the state doesn't." Doesn't say much for Obama, huh?Civic Cat (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, do you have to be a legal resident of CA to get a prescription? Or could an out of state visitor get one? (And no, I'm not making vacation plans!) MDB (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)