RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive79

This is an archive page, last updated 5 November 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Anime discussion

Discuss anything anime-related here. Anyways, I been watching Neon Genesis Evangelion a lot lately as well as posting on several anime forums.JackalTheRascal! (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Eva is good, but New Getter Robo is way better. Ryoma makes Kamina look like Shinji Ikari. The ending of Nadesico sucked.--Thanatos (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, 4kids sucks. They ruin every anime that they can get their hands on.JackalTheRascal! (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but when your in their target age group, your too young to really care.--Thanatos (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the good old days of getting up on Saturday morning to watch Pokemon - you can never really forgive 4kids for this, though. ~SuperHamster Talk 00:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Behold the awesomeness ofNew Getter Robo--Thanatos (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old cumudgeon, Kids telly was better in my day. Behold the brilliance of Bagpuss, part1 part2. Anything by Oliver Postgate is gold really. And Moomins (the original fuzzy felt version), that was sooo bleak. --AMassiveGay (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And here be the moomins--AMassiveGay (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Curiously, Professor Yaffle from Bagpuss was based on Bertrand Russell. You don't get that in fucking Fireman Sam.--AMassiveGay (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those MG. Haven't seen Bagpuss or the Moomins in years. Heartwarming stuff. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Can this go to a forum the rest of us can ignore? ħuman 04:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Can this Human guy go to a forum the rest of us can ignore? --I'm bored (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, sir. ħuman 09:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That's very considerate. --I'm bored (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

He-Man, Knightmare (well, it's kind of animated) and the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon. Good days. Oh, and Transformers, but never Thundercats.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Do I get old fart status by saying my favorite cartoon when I was a young'un was Underdog? "Speed of lightning, roar of thunder, fighting all who rob or plunder..."MDB (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Weird bug in Template:Internet

It screws up the footnotes on pages it's used on, but I can't figure out why (as I said on my user page, I suck at programming, and wiki syntax is kind of like that to me). What's causing this? In the past when it was on OS Wars it cut off several footnotes, and now on Metapedia it cut off a comment I put next to the disambiguation line about Meta-Wiki, but the link instead goes to a completely unrelated footnote, which is just plain confusing.

I posted this on Talk:Metapedia#Not again... as well. --GastonRabbit (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

IIRC its a common and seemingly random bug in DPL. ^theist 01:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw nothing wrong when I went there. But that's the nature of random bugs, isn't it? ħuman 01:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I fixed that article (but only that one) by moving the template closer to the top of the code. It seems like it can be avoided by putting it before everything else except maybe markers for articles ranks (such as the bronze rank on the Metapedia article), instead of being placed in the middle like it was before I moved it. (Putting it at the top makes it easier to find in the code anyway, even if the bug ended up being fixed). --GastonRabbit (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. And, yeah, our funky sidebars should come first (except for the medals). ħuman 02:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's probably Dpl resetting the parser state. Putting it before any ref tags is a workaround. I'll check it out when I have some time. -- Nx / talk 07:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We had a similar problem with the Holocaust Denial article (IIRC) and I spent ages hacking it apart to find the problem and could only work around it. ^theist 13:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Pink Ribbon Day

So we have breast-cancer awareness and fund-raising but let's not forget that there are many other types of cancer. Yesterday I learned that a friend whom we regularly holiday with had just got the results of a biopsy for a growth in his gall-bladder. It turns out that he has secondary tumours from testicular cancer and will require a lot of radio/chemotherapy. He is an inordinately cheerful guy (despite being a Yorkshireman) and has taken it in his stride. Thankfully he has a good consultant and the NHS to provide free treatment but we men need to regular checks of our own balls just like the ladies do breast checks. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I regularly check my balls and the balls of many others.--AMassiveGay (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Tea-bagging does not count. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That would make for some interesting pamphlets: "Men, check your balls." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Or in AMassiveGay's case, "Mate, can I check your balls?" 17:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Although a recent Cochrane review showed that breast self-exams don't produce any improvement in diagnosis, they merely increase the number of false positives that lead to additional and unnecessary biopsies. ^theist 21:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think regular mammograms are the done thing to do nowadays. ħuman 01:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Pass the soap, my mouth needs it.

According to a Facebook app I just ran, the most common word I use online is basically fuck or fucking. Also, "really", "people" and "why" are right up there. Charlie Brooker has nothing on me when it comes to misanthropy. ^theist 18:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Now I just need to find something that will do the same thing to all my contributions at RW. Could be interesting. ^theist 18:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

i did that swer-checking app. It flagged up Dick Barton. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

My mother made wash my mouth ou with after I said a bad word once. Tasted fucking awful.--AMassiveGay (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I, too, got zinged by the same app, for "cocked and loaded". Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 23:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

COMMENCE ADORATION

Occasionaluse (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely adorable. And with that expression, is undoubtedly plotting your murder even as we speak. MDB (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And indubitably. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Cats are evil, of course. Deny that and lose all credibility. MDB (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Two cats not looking at all evil.

If my cat doesn't receive a lot more praise from you people, I'm afraid it's going to kill me. That's right, I just went Oral Roberts on your ass. Now help. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOADCAT. MDB (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, buddy :) Occasionaluse (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If there is one thing worse than pictures of other people's babies then it must be... now where did I put that wheelie bin? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Your cat is very pretty. Ey looks thoughtful & not entirely honest, which is as it should be. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the essence of the Internet. It's not enough to just upload pictures of your adorable cats, you need to have others comment on the pictures and tell you how adorable your cats are. --85.77.139.176 (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of good eating on a cat. ħuman 05:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Domestic cats are largely insipid, it's all that tinned pap that they get fed. Farm cats which rely on rabbits, rats and birds are much more "gamey" and have less fat. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW I can confirm that farm cats can both get into and out of wheelie bins without human assistance. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Your moggie is cute and I'm sure it loves you very much. Such love will be displayed by draping the intestines of a small creature across your bed, whilst you sleep. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 11:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There is something wrong with your cat

Your cat is not cat coloured. Cats are ginger or shades of black and white.

Cats do not have beautiful blue eyes. Cats have evil yellow eyes like SATAN.

Cats do not look adoringly at cameras. Cats eye their servants with malice.

Etc ... etc ...

The picture is actually of an extraterrestrial wheedling its way into your affections prior to taking over the planet! - FEAR IT.

13:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Or something even worse than mouse intestine. Yesterday, my cat caught and devoured a pregnant mouse, leaving the unborn fetus thoughtfully on our patio. (Thanks, Candie, Mom really needed to see that.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Learning Cat Names

I'm learning to tell the difference between my new sorta boyfriend's cats. One is a black lump that may or may not ever move from under the dining room table, one squints in one eye (poor thing has cancer in the other eye), one is friendly and likes me, and one has two different colored eyes, and is also a dog, not a cat. MDB (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Afghan war comes home

Funny how something you think is miles away suddenly hits home. Just found out an old friend of mine (and a member of the Bang Bang Club) has been seriously wounded in Afghanistan. Stepped on a landmine, which doesn't sound good. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 13:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

My brother's out there now and should be back in Novemeber after over 6 months solid. It does change your perspective a bit when you know someone involved since you get to see and hear about it up close and first hand, and you also get to realise that even in our apparently open and honest and enlightened times, the news reports from there are just propaganda pieces and often tell you barely a fraction of what's happening. It definitely makes me think less of those bitchy moaners who are saying the people over there "aren't heros" because it's a job - I doubt they'd last five minutes before crying to come home. ^theist 13:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As well as family members serving in Afghanistan, I also have relatives working in military and government security services. Fairly senior stuff. It puts the tendency to moan about government keeping terrorism alerts artificially high into perspective. People who have anything to do with protecting us from terrorist threats are constantly frightened half to death.

While they might be accused of erring on the side of caution and governments might be accused of taking political advantage of heightened terror status, our security services (including military intelligence, civil intelligence, border services, police, and government) have to get it right all of the time.

The terrorists, especially the ones who are willing to sacrifice young impressionables, have to get it right only once.

We are sometimes guilty of forgetting that. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

And the section that was here a while ago on security theatre? Do you disagree with that? Educated time Hoover! 18:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Dunno, didn't read it. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Although security theatre does have a legitimate aspect in that it reassures people, sort of like placebopathy but for security. ^theist 18:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a legitimate example of a slippery slope: security theatre only works if the public do not know the truth, and you are now espousing misinforming the masses to keep them complacent. Such is the stuff of dystopian speculative fiction. 18:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As with any policy put into place by politicians looking to the next election, there will always be a degree of hype. Doesn't make it (security theatre in this case) right. But it doesn't mean that those actually responsible for dealing with the threat are wrong either. In most cases they are doing a nigh impossible job with a huge amount of conscientiousness and real fear. To believe otherwise and simply lump everything in a bucket marked "STATE CONTROL BRAIN-WASHING" is naive in the extreme. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"State control brain-washing" is definitely naive and simplistic. It also seems to assume intent and, specially, malicious intent. This is something that I don't think is necessarily present. Odds are, that if people in general are hoodwinked by ineffective security, then the odds are that leaders (who are people too, remember) will also be hoodwinked. I also doubt the intelligence services are maliciously manipulating either, but perhaps their specialist focus means they view the problem as far more prevalent and deadly than it is in the real world. I'm just speculating, of course, but it stands to reason that people in authority have the same weaknesses and biases as the people under them. ^theist 09:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind rewriting that in schoolboy English? ħuman 09:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hanlon's razor? ^theist 13:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Monies to be made

Hello my close and personal friends. I make this shrewd investment opportunity open for you, my collegiate friends. I am the son of Prince Naikpur the sad, lord of wingi province in upper Nigeria. Unfortunately my family was ouster from power but I have a total fortune of 60 million US dollars. I am looking for a front organisation through which to funnel the funs. You will have 30.4% of the profits of my criminal endeavour. There will be great rewards. I believe your organisation 'the foundation' uis the perfect organisation for our organisation. Remember, monies are VAST. You will earn 50 MILLION US DOLLARS. Thisisyourchance (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nigeria has no "wingi" province. Or princes for that matter(though it does have cheifs). And learn to spell. Allow me to direct your attention to this: http://irregularwebcomic.net/359.html. Though you are kinda funny. Tyrannis (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And maths. 30.4% of 60million is not 50million. CS Miller (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I like how he calls it a criminal endeavorer. And he is funneling funs. That is pretty funny.Tyrannis (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I can answer all of your concerns. Nigeria does have tribal princes, we are very important. and wingi province is a local name for a major province in upper Nigeria. Your ignorance of my nation insults me. I did not call it a criminal endeavour that was doctored by neo nazis working on this site who cannot stand the sight of a legitimate African businessman so they seek to discredit me. Thisisyourchance (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh. What is the official name for wingi? I went to high school with a Nigerian. Great football(soccer) player. Tyrannis (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Be quiet you imposter, you treat me like an imbecile, mocking my intelligence just because I am from Nigeria, I suppose this is how you get your sick kicks. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my hand, I started out as a street trader, my parents were humble folk, I started from the bottom. Thisisyourchance (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Your parents were humble princey folk, then? Educated time Hoover! 13:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I lol'd. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, since this site is run mostly by communists and broke college students who are also probably communists, I doubt to many people will be interested. Tyrannis (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I'm also Nigerian royalty. I'm keeping all my Record Breakers money for myself though.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As a frequent visitor to Nigeria I confess that I have been subject many times to similar warm and generous offers from its people. However, I could never bring myself to accept such largesse from a country which needs these funds to be kept at home rather than squirreled away in my already over-inflated Swiss bank account. If you let me know where you live then we could possibly discuss this during my next visit face-to-face over a Nigerian Guinness or Star beer and we could work out a way to help some deserving local communities. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got the money order for $25,000 ready to send, but it's all the money I have. Please send me a money order for $6.95 so I can mail it to you. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't know Nr Watumbo Mugumbi of the Nigerian Development Fund would you ? I sent him an account number and am waiting for his promised 32 million dollars that was left over from a mining project. I must say Nigerian banking methods seem fun. If you could drive over to Somalia with the money in small bills I could meet you and take it off your hands. Hamster (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"funnel the funs" you have my attention Sir. There's nothing quite like having some fun funnelled. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Neat!

Fingers to you! 21:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's really interesting! Strange that no science fiction authors have thought of that (as far as I know). Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that if you used really, really, really, reallyⁿ small balls and veryⁿ fine (monomolecular graphite thingies like whatsisname got a Nobel for?) containment, then you could latch on to surface roughness even. 21:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Bucky balls? ħuman 01:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Strange where thought takes you - astronauts' soles could grip using something like the beanbaggy things I'd imanij. 22:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No, fullerenes don't have the same properties as "balls" that we'd measure on the macroscopic scale. Kroto did once suggest they could be used as miniature ball-bearings (and be used in nanomachines), but clearly didn't take into account that mechanical properties don't scale very well, and thus they've been consigned to purely novel forms of carbon for nanotechnology research. I doubt the same concept for grip would equally apply to latching onto surfaces, even reasonably rough ones, just by shrinking the size of the particles inside as they're already measured in microns meaning it would feel more like a gel as it is. Perhaps something that rapidly changed state from reasonably soft to hard upon an electrical charge may work for gripping finer things. But I think if that was possible and practical, they'd actually be using it. ^theist 13:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A brief history of the Soviet Union...

...to the tune of Tetris. Cue certain individuals - who shall remain nameless - whining and complaining that it's too easy on the Baby Eating Reds... ^theist 07:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I am one of these people 'who shall remain nameless' but who has now been named. There is little difference between the horror of Stalin and the horror of Hitler. The people of Budapest and Prague will quickly tell you how nice the fluffier Soviet Premier since Stalin were. Let me ask you something, would you have posted up a cuddly youtube clip about a brief history of the third reich? E.G. 'Look at all those Jews in death camps - OMG, the Nazi's were real characters'. MarcusCicero (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Video, 'twas the bore. Tune sucked too. ħuman 08:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we know you choked your sense of humour to death and hid the body in your basement several years ago. ^theist 08:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Joke's on you, I have no basement! (I do, however, have a nine acre swamp... wanna come hang out some time?) ħuman 08:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And the Nazis were so terrible that people don't make jokes about them... oh, wait, they do. What's next, protesting that <insert WWII-themed shooter here> allows you to play as a Communist (or a Nazi)? --ZooGuard (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

nazis got a movie --62.142.167.134 (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That Fry and Laurie one is also pretty funny. Also seems to be on the same set as Allo Allo, which was packed with gay Nazi gags. ^theist 13:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair point. Though I do believe that far too many people view the Soviet Empire through Rose tinted lenses. The Nazi humour is incredibly ironic and makes fun of their extreme self importance and pompousness. MarcusCicero (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

On another note, the video itself is crap in the sense that it isn't funny and its boring. There, I said it. MarcusCicero (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just being grumpy, but... There is no Tetris tune. The original had no music, and most variants for the first few years had different kinds of music. The USSR Anthem was a popular choice. The music in the video sounded like a derivative of Kalinka, not nearly as fun as the t.A.T.u version. Kids today... Dendlai (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Has no one told you that humor = tragedy + time? I mean, come on. Surely 70 years is long enough for WWII jokes. -UNSIGNED

Creeped out.

Urgh. Cracked's article has just creeped me out in a bad way. Especially the "twist" to the first entry. shudder roll on All Hallows' Eve. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Herbert from Family Guy. ^theist 14:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe our Ken isn't included.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, two remind me a bit of Ken anyway (and one Uncle Ed). DickTurpis (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And while we're on Crack, this is one of the best articles I've read on there for a while. ^theist 15:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And this one actually. Fair enough the first page seems like the usual kind of nob-gag drivel that Cracked puts out on a page day, but the second page is pretty relevant to RW for the most part, and the final entry is, well, touching and hard-hitting about reality. ^theist 15:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my reaction was more along the lines of "thanks for stating the obvious." Yeah, life is hard, and yeah you'll die sonner or later, but so what? Take it in stride.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQRyantherebel (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The end of the Beckian Era

I have finally come to an understanding of how to end Glenn Beck. Protests and boycotts are not the answer. The answer is to elect sane, moderate republicans. Sure, Beck will complain that they are too progressive, but FOX news would not allow him to slander the GOP so. He will either be forced to kiss moderate GOP ass or attacks small left-wing groups in a post-Obama era. That will destroy his viewerbase. Then he just has to say one outrageous thing about the administration (we all know he can't help himself) and FOX would fire his ass. He would then be blacklisted from other networks and would devolve into another Andy on the internet and radio.

Now if only we could find sane, moderate republicans--Thanatos (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There are a fair amount of those. However, I disagree because Beck doesn't necessarily have to slander RINOs, he just has to support Tea Party candidates in the primaries, which he's been doing. (That's why people like O'Donnell have been winning the primaries in the first place.) So the best we can hope for is that the people he supports are so batshit insane (again, like O'Donnell) that they can't win against Democrats even in Republican states. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What I can't understand is, you Yanks seem to vote for a person from a party for Pres, and then almost immediately turn against that party. Is it a problem of voting for a figurehead leader? (because Obama can't be said to be the leader of the Dems; by contrast Cameron is only PM because he was leader of the Tories.) Anyway, here's a little table, illustrating what I mean. --PsyGremlinSprich! 16:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

On my bookshelf are several books entitled Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay, Crashes by Robert Beckman and Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer. All three depict how stupid people can be, especially when engaged in a herd mentality, so don't count on getting sane people elected. Let's face it sane, moderate, politicians are boring; the great unwashed want colour and razzamatazz and usually vote emotionally, not rationally, that's why the TeaParty candidates are doing so well. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, how much do you think people will listen to Beck without some all-powerful enemy in office? For the love of God, the man was talking about Death Stars last week. Militia's die down in republican administrations, so what makes you thing Beck wouldn't die down in after Obama?--Thanatos (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it's anything to with an "enemy". From what I've seen the TPs are angry, now maybe their anger is misplaced but I'm afraid that it's the ones in office who feel the brunt of their anger. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Psy, I think you've noticed that the US system is almost designed to make change as difficult as possible. It splits the government up into pieces that all have to agree, but the way they're elected combined with hte two-party system, makes it almost impossible for them to do so. In a recent WIGO:Blogs entry about comparing US and UK conservatives, the author mentioned that the budget put in by Cameron and co could be implemented because the UK's system, not stay as something proposed by the President and then fought over for entirely partisan reasons by other branches of government. Thus, when we change government in the UK, shit can get done, in the US, shit doesn't get done because it's just not allowed to! ^theist 18:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the "designed to be hard to get things done" part, but the two-party system is not "enshrined" in the paperwork, it just happened and perpetuated itself, sadly. ħuman 03:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

7 Mountains Mandate

Anyone know anything about this? seems to be a Dominionist thing. There's a lot about it out there 17:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mourning

Paul's dead. 17:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul is dead, and was secretly replaced by a look-alike, apparently. So who was the Walrus? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No shoes, what a giveaway.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Bring on the stupid

Whenever I feel like slamming my head into a desk, I head on over to DailyTech and read the article comments. Today does not disappoint; the libertarians are out in full force, and my God is it glorious.

It's the battle of People Completely Ignorant of Economics versus Those Who Kinda Remember Some of It from High School! WHO WILL WIN?! (Either way, my poor desk loses :-( ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That was painful to read, plus the formatting of that website made it worse. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Autosign

I was thinking of writing an autosign script like User:Sinebot, that would run every few minutes and autosign unsigned comments. Would anyone be against this? I don't want to make it and then get the whole FASCISM!!!11!!1!1!!! spiel. Blue (is useful) 04:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I say go ahead; it would save us the bother of unsigning. I assume you could get it to put timestamps on the unsignatures? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The main area of difficulty is in determining which pages need to be signed. Blue (pester) 04:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

All talk pages? And, I have nothing against it, I have always admirated pikiweedia for it. How gently does it fondle resources? ħuman 05:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) That should be easy, anything with a new section link on it is considered a talk page. The hard part is figuring out what's an unsigned comment and finding the author in the fossil record. That's why I went with the forced signing, plus that's useful against trolls who think it's funny to not sign their comments (except when such a troll is a bureaucrat) -- Nx / talk 05:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame that signing isn't automated by now. My tilde finger is down to the second knuckle... ħuman 06:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a drawback of the wiki format. Sadly LiquidThreads is still too buggy. -- Nx / talk 06:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How does that blacklist work? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Put your username on it, try it. -- Nx / talk 06:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, maybe this is a "technical help" question...

Has the ability to port images/files from the commons been stopped? I tried to do it here and the result was epic fail as far as I can see. ħuman 06:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

-- Nx / talk 06:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Is it that you're linking to ones hosted on Wikipedia but not commons? ^theist 06:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you all for your help. ħuman 06:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not a Benefit claimant, I am a customer

Just got back from a 'back to work' interview at the job centre. They kept referring to us Dole scroungers, customers. When did we become customers? Its the same in the NHS now. You are no longer a patient, but a customer. Its a lot of arse. And while I am ranting, when did Holiday become leave?--AMassiveGay (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Leave" has always been the correct term for any civil servant or anyone working for the government. Essentially the term is used the same way as leave for soldiers even though the positions are civilian. ^theist 12:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am quite happy to subscribe to the "leave" camp owing to the etymology of "holiday". Also, bus and rail travellers are now customers rather than passengers. I wonder if it is the same in the 'holiday' industry so that at Butlins they announce "Good morning, customers!" rather than campers? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will concede the leave/holiday point. With train/bus passengers and butlins campers, they are actually customers in the sense they are buying a product or service and can take their custom elsewhere if they so choose. You could even argue the same point with NHS patients - there is some choice and and money may be paid for some treatments, eg. Dentistry, but the Dole? Really? Are there any other folk out there providing the same benefits? I am certainly not paying them - they are paying me (I do pay taxes when in work though). I can only assume its a public relations thing, though to what end? Am I meant to fill empowered?--AMassiveGay (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) You raise an interesting point about the etymology of holiday. When someone wishes you "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" (as I hear in the US it is common to do this) it's really not much of an improvement, is it? Bondurant (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the etymology of a word really that important? There must be plenty of words that are used today differently than when they were coined.--AMassiveGay (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't care where the word comes from, I'm just happy I'm not at my desk. It doesn't matter a jot to me how someone reminds me of that fact. Christmas, Holidays, Diwali, Easter, it's all good. Bondurant (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the "customers" at the benefits office probably comes because there really isn't an established term in use, so they may as well use an already existing one ("claimants", perhaps?). It also puts the staff in the frame of mind that even though you're not buying anything, they're still providing a service to you, which is what it is. There might be an air of political correctness involved, i.e., to prevent them calling you scroungers - to your face, at least - but I doubt this is particularly a bad thing. ^theist 13:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Having worked in a U.B.O. - although admittedly twenty odd years ago - I assume that calling the claimants customers is not for the claimants benefit but to help remind the staff that they are public servants and that the customers are there to be served, not abused. I spent some considerable time on both sides of the counter and I can assure you the view from the other side is very different. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Customer" is just vogue terminology for any stakeholder. Social Security recipients have been referred to as customers for many years now in Oz. I did a business dip a few years back. The word "colleague" had been replaced by the phrase "internal customer".--Brendiggg (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I propose that we start referring to RW editors, contributors and readers as "customers".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

In many NHS services, such as mental health, disability support or treatment for addictions, the persons receiving treatment are usually referred to as "service-users". They're not "patients" since they are receiving ongoing treatment or counselling while continuing with their everyday life, whereas "patient" has connotations of temporary illnesses or injuries. & They're not "customers" as this has commercial connotations. I had thought job centres & DWP also used "service-user" but maybe not. They have a Customer Charter, as many companies & large organisations do, so maybe this is why they are using the term. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned by Brendiggg, "customer" is simply the current management-speak consultant pushed bollocks phrase that's sweeping the public sector. It started about four years ago. Even the filth refer to both victims and criminals as customers, and their latest money wasting scheme is "customer satisfaction" targets. Next up in the public sector is replacing the word "management" with "leadership". DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I wish they'd put more effort into actually helping folk get work. 'Job' centres are fucking useless at their stated purpose. I've never got job through those places--AMassiveGay (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Learning Linux

I recently installed Ubuntu on my laptop. It works fine, but I have no clue as to tweek it properly and the terminal fills me with fear. Can anyone suggest a good book (ideally) or point to suitable website that teach me everything I need to know. Something geared towards halfwits would be best because, quite frankly, I'm not that bright. Cheers.--AMassiveGay (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

https://help.ubuntu.com/, https://help.ubuntu.com/community. And of course google and http://ubuntuforums.org are your friends. -- Nx / talk 23:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Also check out ubuntu-tweak -- Nx / talk 23:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nx. Do you know I never actually thought about looking at documentation? I will look through that in a bit. The forums are good too, thanks. Very good if I have specific problem. I'll avoid that Tweak site though - it looks like it tweaks things automatically, and I learn nothing from it. Ta though--AMassiveGay (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ubuntu-tweak is a tool that gives easy access to a bunch of often-tweaked stuff that can otherwise only be configured by descending into the murky depths of gconf-editor (gnome's equivalent of the registry editor). It might be useful to just look at what options it offers, then learn how to do it manually if you want to. -- Nx / talk 00:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a great way to get around any learning curve for Linux and to insure that you'll never run into tricky tech issues again. It's called "Windows". You can either buy the OS or jump out of a high one, either way your problem has been solved. -A Stranger ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.13.203.96 / talk / contribs} 23:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, if I was happy with Windows, I wouldn't have gotten rid of it and replaced it with Linux. As I said, it works fine, I just wish to learn more.--AMassiveGay (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I use Windows frequently for web surfing. If I was required to use it for much else, I really would be contemplating suicide. Linux: believe it or not, it actually makes some people's lives easier. --Quantheory (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Web surfing is the main reason (alright, one of the ...) that I don't use widnows. The number of Micro$oft targetting viruses and stuff out there is frightening. 01:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

When I had to learn the Unix CLI, I had three sources: (1) apropos, (2) man, (3) the Tab key. Still surprisingly useful today. There is also a large body of HOWTOs that cover many tweaking tasks. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have found (and rediscovered 20 times) that a well-phrased google search almost always gets one to the solution to one's PC problems. Heck, I even edited the registry thing on this flaptop to kill the capslock key. But, LOL, the one I used mapped the shift keys to caplocks as well! Luckily, due to other things I read, I could see how to fix it. 'Twas a wonderful evening. ħuman 02:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This is why Ubuntu disables root shells by default, making it difficult for those who do not know enough to use sudo su - to do too much damage. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember the last time I had to resort to using the command line to configure or fix anything in Linux. I use OpenSuSE, though, which has the awesome YaST system tool that covers most things. I only use the command line for running the occasional shell script and (very occasionally) for using transcode, but I'd always say its worth being comfortable with the command line. Bondurant (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Now I am left feeling very thick. I should just buy something like this book for a spaz--AMassiveGay (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Small word of caution: Books like that are usually outdated by the time they are published. The one you linked is from 2007, which is an epoch ago in Linux terms. It'll no doubt be good for the basics, but if you need real help on a recent distro, Google is your friend Bondurant (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Throwing this out there

I'm sure there is enough collective intelligence, plus Google-fu, here to help me.

A while back, I remember reading somewhere that people assign positive emotions or feelings to instrumental, or foreign language music, because there are no words and they rely on the music for the emotional response/attachment/thingy. As an example this sounds gorgeous, until you read the lyrics. Actually, it still sounds gorgeous, but has a totally different connotation.

Of course, I am now unable to find any reference the claim above. Has anybody else come across this, or knows where to look, or just feels like sending me large amounts of money (hey, if I don't ask, I'll never know)? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 08:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to post (a link to) the lyrics. ħuman 08:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Lyrics linky thingy --PsyGremlinParla! 09:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The lyrics are on the video itself. Top of the screen. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I didn't listen in that far I guess. I dunno, they ain't brilliant, but they ain't neo-nazi either... ħuman 09:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Having just listened to the whole thing and read the lyrics, it still sounds good. Mind you, I always have a good time singing along to "The Hurting" by Tears for Fears, which isn't exactly the most cheerful album out there and is in English. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There's also the issue that some/many people simply don't listen to the lyrics, they just enjoy (or hate) the music. Poll? ħuman 09:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's kinda the point I'm making - if you don't understand the lyrics (or there are no lyrics), the chances are greater of you liking the song, than not liking it. Having lyrics you can understand adds a kind of bias to whether or not you like it. --PsyGremlinTal! 10:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not about understanding them - some people - many people - simple do not care about the words. ħuman 11:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Every Breath You Take by the Police is still often cited as one of the most romantic songs ever written. Clearly, anybody who thinks that has never listened to the lyrics or understood what its really about. Bondurant (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I remember when "I Will Always Love You" was a big hit -- you'd hear teenage girls saying they want it played at their wedding. It would be an interesting choice for a wedding, considering it's someone saying goodbye to the person they love. MDB (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. A couple I knew had Will you still love me tomorrow? as their first dance. They are now separated. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘If I ever marry, this is the song I want for the first dance. On the other paw, I want to walk down the aisle to this. MDB (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You should go with the Darth Vader theme! Bondurant (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Elvis and weddings, I went to wedding where the bride was a massive smiths fan, and had a kind of tradition of having an Elvis impersonator do the music. It was very strange when the bride and groom had their first dance as man and wife to the sounds of 'There is light that will never go out' sung in the style of elvis.--AMassiveGay (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As Human suggested above, I count myself as one of those people who don't particularly care about lyrics. If you read most of the lyrics to the music I listen to, they're embarrassing. I recall dozens of times back on the Velvet Revolver forums where people would start posts titled "I WROTE A SONG!!!!11" and they'd just put words on - I'm like, "what the fuck, you haven't written a song, you've written a poem, what is this, an acoustic ballad, a death metal track, electropop, what?". I don't deny that good lyrics can enhance a song whereas bad lyrics make it a painful experience to sing along to, but I don't rate them highly at all. ^theist 18:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the song, the writer and much more. John Lennon's original lyrics to "Jealous Guy" were a really atrocious load of hippie shit, and "I'm just a jealous guy" was "I'm just a child of nature". Albums like "The Wall" are made by the lyrics, and in classic era Yes, Jon Anderson used the timbre of words as an instrument in addition to a medium for telling a story. You can listen to this kind of thing without consciously appreciating the lyrics, but you miss out on a lot. It seems I'm in the minority on here. If I hear a song that sounds nice, I'll listen to the lyrics too.

Back to the original point: I remember when "Joe le Taxi" was a hit over here a few years ago. From the way Vanessa Paradis danced to it, one assumed that it was some kind of sensual song and that "Joe le Taxi" was some kind of French expression for hot sex. Of course it was really about a little taxi who went around and got stuck in traffic jams and so on. Of course, I was 14 at the time, and the way she danced made me think of hot sex anyway, but that's another story. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Back to Psy's point for a moment, I'm of two minds. One could say, for example, that the "I don't listen to lyrics" people will like all "good tunes" regardless of lyrics, and that lyric listeners will reject some for having crap words. However, some songs aren't that great - except for having very good lyrics, so those people will enjoy them as well. ħuman 23:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As others have noted, "mediocre music, but great lyrics" describes the entire nerd music industry. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really worthy of a WIGO

because it just amuses me...

World's rarest baseball card, auctioned off by nuns. MDB (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice one for talk wigo. ħuman 11:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I have a question. --I'm bored (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Me too. --85.76.36.119 (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I had mine back when it was still cool to have questions. --I'm bored (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

We are old-school then. All the kids today have just googles. --85.76.36.119 (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Back in my time we didn't have any of all this fancy internet stuff, and let me tell you, I'm never going to use ANY of that EVER. --I'm bored (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Obama approval jumps to 54%; Enthusiasm Gap closing

The accuracy of polls is, at best, marginal right now. This election in particular may show quite a few problems with the accuracy of polling models. So, believe nothing. But just FYI: NEWSWEEK Poll: Obama Approval Rating Jumps, Democrats Close ‘Enthusiasm Gap’. --Leotardo (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's one thing worse than people reading too much into opinion polls, it's people reading too much into opinion polls that were published five days ago. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Kind of a dumb comment - the point was to say not to read too much into polls, and as evidence a poll that contradicts most other polls. So, if there's one thing worse than people reading too much into opinion polls that were published five days ago, it's people who totally didn't get the point of a thread. --Leotardo (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Except you've pretended and failed to understand opinion polls before, and this was another example of you doing so. If you were honestly making the point you claim, you'd have posted when the poll came out instead of now when a sequence of other opinion polls have demonstrated that this one was an outlier. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No single poll is accurate, even in a two-party system you'll have a margin of error of at least five percentage points (technically, there's a 5% chance that it'll be even worse than that at measuring voting intentions). So in that regard, no poll is ever accurate in a strict sense, and in a tight race, the eventual outcome simply cannot be predicted. You also have to ask yourself what's more likely - a sudden surge for Democrats without an apparent reason, and that nobody else has picked up on, or the possibility that's it's just an outlier, sheer random noise. There are plenty of firms out there, each using different methods, sample sizes, and post-survey fiddling. And unless they commit obvious and transparent errors, there's almost no way to tell which ones are more likely to be accurate - maybe Rasmussen is right, and their numbers have been absolutely horrible for Democrats. The best thing you can do under these circumstances is to take the average, and there's been little overall movement there. I'd also like to see some ray of hope, but there's just nothing in the data that would suggest the pro-Republican trend has reversed itself. Röstigraben (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't Ask Don't Tell and showers

One of the arguments for banning gays from the military is "soldiers shouldn't have to shower in front of someone who's attracted to them."

Just how common are communal showers in today's military? The impression my relatively limited knowledge gives me is that most military members are housed in dormitory style housing, not an old-fashioned barracks, once you get past basic training.

Are communal showers still common on board Navy ships? What about in combat zones? Can today's military members really expect no privacy in when they're taking a bath?

MDB (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how common they are, but obviously since gay people are there now, they are showering in front of people who are attracted to the same gender. In my experience, men who are so worried about other men finding them attractive are often not attractive to either gender. --Leotardo (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Or are hiding something about their own sexuality. My gym has totally open showers. I guess that means gay men shouldn't be allowed to go to my gym too. SJ ^Debaser 18:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If they don't have the strength of will to control their fears of somebody looking at their willy in the shower, I definitely wouldn't want them out there fighting. If they are that weak willed, I'd just expect another My Lai. Really...Dendlai (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Here's the lowdown (for the Army, at least). Most buildings are upgraded with individual shower stalls. The barracks are (typically) two-man rooms with a private shower, although there are configurations with two two-man rooms with an adjoining shower (however, said shower is usually the kind of tub/shower with curtain that you'd find in just about anyone's home with a lock on the door(s).

Some schools and initial basic training facilities have locker-room style communal showers, but most have several separate shower stalls with a bench in front or near the row (i.e., you have to disrobe and dump your stuff, go into the shower, clean up, then get out and let the next guy go).

In theater, if you have to use a shower tent for what ever reason, that's a communal shower but, trust me, if you're using a shower tent, it's probably the first shower you've had in two weeks or so, so you straight don't give a fuck about anything other than washing your goat-smelling ass. Shower trailers (or shower hooches, as some call them), are like the individual shower stalls listed above, with shower stalls down the sides and a bench running up the middle.

The worst anyone is going to see in any situation is some dude either getting ready to go in to a shower or getting dressed after coming out of one (with the exception of the few communal showers listed above). It's honestly no different than going to a public gym, swimming pool, or using the shower house at a campground. No one cares about anything other than getting clean while in them, so pretty much everyone is an ADULT about it and minds their own fucking business while they're in there.

People need to stop crying about stupid shit. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't stop picturing MDB picturing SJ in the showers. Sorry's all around. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If you guys would include more photos on your user pages, then *I* could be picturing some of you in showers a bit more clearly. As it stands, I'm only picturing Ace ;-) --Leotardo (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ace and Co.

Of course in Starship Troopers it didn't seem to be much of an issue. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am a handsome devil. That is my curse. SJ ^Debaser 20:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

As we know some people are transsexual. These people get sex change operations on the "NHS" here in Spain. But it takes a while to get the op done, so it was proposed that such people would be regarded as "legally" male or female while they were awaiting the op - and that this would allow them to use the changing rooms of their legally assigned gender while they were waiting their biological reassignment. Logical I suppose, but I don't think it really worked.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There was a similar tangled issue a few years back at a women's college in Boston (IIRC). A pre-op FTM trans, I think, was going there and it was confusing the hell out of everyone. ħuman 20:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Look at all this crap. People worrying about this and that and whether people will see their naked butt and worse, like it (which is amusing since I usually am worried about people -not- liking it), and whether someone is a women or a man, and when and how and but and "properness". There are illnesses to be cured, universe(s) to be explored and we are tangling our civilization with invisible rules and regulations instead of applying a liberal amount of "get over it". The Israeli military got over it, they can get over it too. [/opinion] Sen (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Very imho. Blue (pester) 20:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

But it could go both ways, right? Why should we care if our leaders are homophobes or racists if those distinctions are part of a system of "invisible rules" ? Blue (is useful) 20:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This argument is not as stupid as it sounds; how many of the bleeding heart liberals who take the "don't be silly, what's wrong with a gay man sharing a shower with other men" would be completely ok with fully unisex facilities - coz the argument's the same; "do you really think that a man sharing a shower with a women is going to fancy her? ha that's dumb". DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not the argument here. You're moving the goalposts. Blue (pester) 21:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the real argument is over what in the world they will do about the submarines? --Leotardo (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The argument has nothing to do with DADT. Gay people have to share facilities with the same sex all the time, including in gym or pool locker rooms. Because most such places only have male, female, or private facilities, we have to learn to deal with it from a fairly early age (it's not that hard), and society has little apparent concern about this (for GLBs; transgendered folks are another matter). It doesn't matter whether or not you have an interest in anyone in a locker room (and boy have I ran into some unexpected people at the pool); you've gotta be there anyway if you're gonna use the facilities. Furthermore, DADT doesn't prevent gay people from entering the military anyway, nor does it always prevent someone from being "out" (some gay people get kicked immediately after being outed, and others have an "open secret" or no secret at all for years before being booted). It makes no sense for this to be an issue ONLY in military showers, and ONLY when someone is allowed to talk about being gay rather than having to be sneaky about it.

That's one reason I don't buy the unisex argument; gay and straight men see each other naked all the time, even in civilian situations. We've already de facto made this adjustment. --Quantheory (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen another man's naughty bits (live) in decades. What are you talking about? As far as unisex showers, toilets, etc., amusingly, most if not all of us grow up with them (in our family homes). ħuman 03:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you're rather missing my point; it's not that everyone does this, it's just that it happens all the time and people just don't take note (because there are lots of people who do actually frequent athletic facilities or whatnot where there are actual locker rooms that people walk around naked in). And my "unisex" comment was directed at the kind of objection raised by Delta above (multi-person unisex facilities, which most family homes do not contain, I'd wager). --Quantheory (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Most typical domestic bathrooms will support at least three people, as long as they are doing different things (one in bath, one using toilet, one washing face, say). Not that that is very common, of course. ħuman 18:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot. Boys don't want to be looked at by boys the same way they look at girls, is basically it (ie, with "can I hit that if I get it drunk?" in their minds, or whatever). Fucking assholes. ħuman 08:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

In Summation

• Communal showers aren't that common in the military anymore, and where they do occur, it's no different from showering at the gym.

• The people who are most concerned about gay people staring at them in showers
  • Probably aren't in the military (at most, they're no longer active duty)
  • Probably aren't going to get stared at by anyone, anyway

• We're all wondering whether our fellow RationalWiki members are worth staring at. If anyone is curious, I am not, unless you have a thing for chubby bearded middle aged white guys with a tattoo of Pooh-bear. MDB (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not bearded, and my tattoo is of a Jelly Baby. But the rest fits, so I'm really not worth staring at either :) Worm^{(t | c)} 14:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ditto, plus I seem to have reached the age where my bod is making that rapid transition from Greek God, to Greek. Oh, and my tattoo's Hobbes (as in Calvin). --PsyGremlinTal! 15:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Bearded, but my tattoo is of a red Japanese Dragon.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You all may have cooler tattoos than mine, but I have the best name for mine. It's my "tat-pooh". MDB (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a tattoo and I have never had trouble getting dates with attractive men (and a couple of attractive ladies). --Leotardo (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You guys do realize that all of this'll end up on RWW, right? :D Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Most don't care. They put it here, which ain't exactly "secret". Whereas, RWW is one of the safest places on the 'net to have one's personal details "outed." ħuman 07:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Beard. No tatoos, piercings, or cybernetic implants(yet). I'm in decent shape, esp. for a Louisianian, but my skin reacts badly with the local water, and I refuse to cut my pinky finger nails. Tyrannis (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Attention Goat Fans

The goat fights back. Now, when the gerboas rebel... Jack Hughes (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the original news item was mentioned here at the time it was first reported.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

o.o

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2010/10/24/sea-shepherds-new-interceptor-vessel-revealed/

I want two of whatever that is. Sen (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, their bat boat is fucking awesome. ^theist 16:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's not the Ady Gil! It's bigger and even more bad-ass. Sea Shepherd don't deserve it! ^theist 16:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't care what the article says about it looking like a Klingon ship, it's a Bat-Boat! MDB (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously photoshopped. The pixels are all wrong. --I'm bored (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the pixels is upside down. And the rest are all wet. ħuman 05:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Open for debate: American political analysis

Resolved: the best analysis of American politics is currently coming from \satirists like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and The Onion.

Inspired by this Onion story, and, a little while back, Jon Stewart directly asking Eric Cantor if Reagan would be welcome in today's Republican party. MDB (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right, but you have to keep in mind that Stewart et al. can always hide behind the fact that they are comedians, so they really don't have an obligation to do a sincere analysis if they don't want to. There is some interesting statistical analysis on the FiveThirtyEight blog, but on TV I'll admit that no mainstream news channel does a good job. However, that may be because the Daily Show is so entertaining that we don't notice its other failings (if there are any).

Also, Obama is going to be on tonight. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

RESOLVED: The best analysis of ANY politics is satire. Swift tells us more about the rotten-ness of British rule in Ireland than any number of learned scholarly journals written in the 20th century. Sinclair Lewis tells us more about small town America in the 1920s than a libraries worth of 'sociology' examining midwest America in the 1920s. Aldous Huxley does more to dissect the pretensions and frivoloties of interwar Britain than any book of political science. Orwell does more to destroy the delusions of totalitarian regimes than any official history.

In short, the best analysis is passionate, witty, and insulting. MarcusCicero (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of best. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think satire tends to require more self-awareness; you're focusing on your opponents' position the whole time, looking for flaws with the understanding that if your audience can't make the same connections, it's just not going to be funny. It's usually different from regular polemic where you can simply assert superiority loudly and your opponent becomes wrong by contrast. Of course, that doesn't guarantee the quality of analysis, but I think it does mean that there are stronger selection pressures on the satire/comedy wing of politics, so maybe it becomes easier to actually find better comments.

Satirists also have the luxury of having little pressure put on them to be constructive. They basically get to just sit back and laugh at the infinite variety of human stupidity out there. That doesn't make them wrong or useless, but it does sometimes immunize them from having to defend a particular viewpoint. --Quantheory (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree to a fair extent here, political satire - when done well - is extremely powerful (and amusing). For those not familiar with them, I would highly recommend the Bird and Fortune interviews, top notch stuff. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to vote...

... for which songs NASA uses to wake the next space shuttle crew.

It was a tough choice; they've got some good ones. MDB (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

But no Hammer Smash Face. ^theist 00:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Distinct lack of any Gorerotted songs, too. Masticated by the Spasticated would be ideal. Webbtje (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Aww, they don't have "The Space Race is Over". Educated time Hoover! 12:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't deny my geek heritage, so I voted for the theme from Star Trek. MDB (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Bummer, "Also Sprach" isn't on the list... ħuman 13:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Norse mythology e-mail

I got this in e-mail today, if someone wants to see if they can do anything with it:

"Congratulation with your home-page which includes pages about Norse mythology. Unfortunately, some mistakes have crept in:

1. Fricka is a name of Frigg used by Richard Wagner in his operas and is not genuine Norse mythology.

2. Miming is not a name of the sword of Frey. This sword, which had the ability to chop and sting by itself, doesn`t have a name. Miming is the name of a troll who owned a magical sword in the myth of Balder and Hod.

3. The name of the eagle in the top of Yggdrasill is not Viðopnir. This is the name of a cock in the myth of Svipdag and Mengloð. The `name of the eagle in top of The World Tree is not mentioned anywhere."

tmtoulouse 22:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Fuck accuracy, Wagner was better anyways.

I changed one. But I'm about as interested in Norse mythology as... well, I'd come up with a comparison but obviously I'm too disinterested to think of what it is. It's unusual for mistakes to be submitted by email, though. ^theist 01:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling ListenerX! (right?) PS, Giants up 9-0 after a 7 run eighth. ħuman 03:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Frigg one is right; I will see about the others. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The other two are correct as well. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this matter of our misrepresentation of Odinism and its theology. Does anyone else find this hi-fucking-larious? ħuman 04:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

For perhaps the three hundredth time, this is a matter of accurately portraying the Norse myths. The very different matter of Odinist "theology," if you can call it that, is a joke and has only tenuous connections with the myths. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to be mocking. Having someone on board who can clarify/clean up mistakes is a good thing, whether one believes the pretty stories or part of them or not at all. ħuman 05:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Though they are massive backwater stubs dating back to the article creation drive. Many may not have been revised since 2007-8. I wouldn't be surprised if they're not too factual, but I don't think the mistakes are important as, say, homeopathy actually working better than a placebo so our entire set of articles on it is wrong. ^theist 11:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Uninterested! Not disinterested, uninterested! Aargh! Webbtje (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. See Merriam-Webster, Random House. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Plagued by insomnia

Ok, its 5.30am and I still can't sleep. Bloody bollocking bollocks to that.--AMassiveGay (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd eat some pills and play PlayStation with you if only you were within strangling reach. 05:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

ooh goodness - no pills. I would be awake for days. I think I will give on sleep for today--AMassiveGay (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And now I am out of fags. My life sucks.--AMassiveGay (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused about your usage of that word.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Its equally true if you read it either way--AMassiveGay (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Take 25mg of promethazine. You might not get up until the next evening but it works a fucking treat. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have an aversion to taking medication for anything that is not life threatening. As my insominia is chronic (I get less and less sleep over a week or two until I end up going about 48hrs with no sleep to reset everything). Sleeping pills may be habit forming for me. Besides which, googling promehazine suggests it might be contraindicated for me. On the plus side, I get to catch up on my reading.--AMassiveGay (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Get a bottle of Valerian. Works a treat. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Mohammed number 1 baby name in uk

I followed this link from CP via the blaze. Note that in the comment section, the comments highlighting that the story is in fact bollocks are all voted down. --AMassiveGay (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In other news, "Maria," along with its variants, is quite a common name among Catholic girls. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm more alarmed by #5 on the boys list. Who the hell names their kid Alfie? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Half witted Eastenders fans?--AMassiveGay (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

By the same logic, Jack (7090) + John (762) + Ewan (636) + Shawn (41) + Johnny (100) + Ian (61) + Evan (973) = 9663 > 7549. Christianity triumphs! Röstigraben (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the 21st century, Britain, where Muhammad is the #1 male name in the world! I'd also like to point out that your empire ended 150 years ago and you should stop pretending to be important, or worse yet, getting offended when the ruddy colonials take a swipe back at you.UncleHo (talk) 08:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My favourite comment on that article is the one that says "I'm Muslim" and has been voted down 500 times. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Another knee jerk reaction from UncleHo - judging Britain from the Daily Mail is as stupid as judging the US from Fox News. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can, but the downvoted comments (checking out "worst rated") scares me more than anything... ^theist 11:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not half as scary as the "best rated" comments. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is along the lines of something I was thinking about the other day. If you are Muslim, it's acceptable, if not encouraged, to name your son(s) Mohammed. However, if you name your teddy bear Mohammed you get thrown in jail and receive death threats. Anyone explain? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Teddy Bears don't go to heaven maybe?--AMassiveGay (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The controversy seemed to be becuase it was an "image" of the prophet, which is bollocks. They personnified the "pet" teddy bear by giving it a human name. Sometimes it seems people are just looking for an excuse to be offended. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The depiction thing isn't even a real part of Islamic doctrine, it's a far more recent authoritarian thing. I reckon you're right that it's just people wanting an excuse to be offended. ^theist 11:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The "depiction thing" is not recent - it comes from the ten commandments: not depicting anything from heaven above or earth below. Hence why most of the world's Islamic art has focused on patterns and calligraphy rather than images of people or animals. The more holy a person or thing is, the most ungodly it is to depict them. Hence the outrage at images of the prophet Mohammed. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that there are similarities between the Christian and Muslim holy books but I do not believe the the ten commandments exist in the Qur'an. Though there obviously must some similar bit of Muslim nuttiness.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that Islam is an Abrahamic religion? See WP:Islamic holy books - the Torah is right up there alongside the Qur'an. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not worshiping idols, and more specifically false idols, is part of the "Ten Commandment", but "thou shalt not draw a picture of Muhammad" isn't in there. The complete ban and extreme actions in response to depictions are not key aspects of the religion itself - although you could consider it an extension of the idolatry commandments, which only really prevent the depiction of any person on Islamic prayer mats. Depicting Muhammad was quite common for many years. You can see some of it here. And if you look in the right places, you can still find images like this even in the Middle-East and Islamic countries themselves - can't remember where I saw that, though, it may have been either Religulous or Enemies of Reason. ^theist 01:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The teddy bear thing was just idiots yelling at other idiots, egged on by yet more idiots. None of these idiots are really representative of any culture, religion or society.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I once won a muffin for knowing/guessing that Mohammed was the most common first name in the world. Christianity gets diluted because there are too many blessed options. I'd say it would be fair to add up Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, and Joshua for comparison. To add in British Pride, toss in George, David, Patrick, Arthur, and Andrew as well. ħuman 13:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

for the US. Male: James, John and Robert. For Females: Emily, Emma, and Madison. User:Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 13:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

We need some good atheist names. Charles, Richard, Adolf and Peezee? Bondurant (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! My father's name is Charles! I'm going to rib him for it!User:Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 14:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of religious Charleses and Richards in history. To avoid a religious name, the best way would be use a surname-based name like Bradley or Elliot (or Dawkins or Hitchens or Akabusi). Or mirroring religious names like Faith and Hope, how about calling your kids Science or Reason or Peer-Review?--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 14:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This is now up Fun:Atheist names User:Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 14:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A friend of mine married a Maltese woman and being non-religious himself he definitely didn't want to give their son a saint's name, which was the Maltese custom. He eventually decided on the Anglo-Saxon name of Wade.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

How ghastly. I hope his family name was Whimsies. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My first-year girlfriend at uni was hopelessly Catholic and for a long time wouldn't tell me her middle name, it was Etheldreda after an AngloSaxon saint & nun. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You wanna try being Regina - not the best name for an undersized skinny girl: Any wonder I insist on my second forename. 17:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Kitteh sounds like a goat

Not that it's particularly funny, but one simply can't pass up a goat reference. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that little kitteh has a case of the birdwatching twitches. Most cats do that when they see a bird through a window. Usually it's accompanied by a lot of ridiculous little squeaks like this or this. Sometimes it's just silent twitching like this or this. Goat-like chittering is also not uncommon, like this or this. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear

The schedule for Saturday's rally has been leaked.

Benediction by... Father Guido Sarducci.

Who from RW is going? MDB (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hunting season,Can't go.(I love eating deer, so it is not just for sport. I also have never seen Bambi, so that won't work on me either).--Thanatos (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only RWan going? I'll have to act as our journalist, then. Blue (pester) 03:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

We expect 14 hours of liveblogging, including the porta-potty situation. ħuman 03:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That was fun. Crowded/crazy, but quite an experience. I did not make use of the porta-potties, but they were relatively numerous... My long-standing view that Jon Stewart should go into government was bolstered. Blue (pester) 22:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Damn I forgot, it was on TV on CC, wasn't it? Glad you enjoyed it! ħuman 22:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Obama on Daily Show

Anyone else disappointed by his 'performance'? I thought Jon gave him a really good run for his money, but Obama just came off defensive, stiff and dull. I reckon he's just been overwhelmed by it all. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought he did what he came on the show to do - reach a liberal audience and explain to them why they should get out and vote Democratic. I didn't think he was too defensive - after all, he's not going to sit there a few days before an election and say that he failed. Besides, he was reasonably funny. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

After seeing the full version of the interview online, I wasn't disappointed at all. For me, Obama came off well, managing to rebut criticism without sounding clueless or arrogant. Junggai (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Project Blue Beam

Okay, now I'm a fan of video mapping performances as much as the next graphics nerd, but what the hell does this have to do with Project Blue Beam and why can't I tell the difference between the insincere comments and the ones that were written after far too much crystal meth consumption. I'm going to assume it's just publicity whoring for the conspiracy. Vid is good though, video mapping is awesome. ^theist 21:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Video had nothing to do with PBB. A little bit of searching shows earlier copies here & here. According to the caption on the second of those, 這不是電腦特效!!......是真實的雷射燈光秀!!!! "Computer special effects !!...... this is not true laser light show!!!!". I haven't identified the building, but it seems to be somewhere in Hong Kong. Apparently this Blue Beam conspiracy theory is so tenuous it needs to rely on laser light shows, or even computerised ones, for its scaremongering. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that. It's the Oblsovet building, Kharkov, Ukraine. See here (it's yet another copy of the same video, correctly identified) & blog coverage here, here & elsewhere. It was a real light show. OMG just think what they could do with lasers. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I know it's a real light show. It uses projection video mapping which is something I'm researching for potential use in theatre design. You can see the effect a little better in this simpler demonstration. But anyway, I was just wondering why the hell some nuts had gone for this as some sort of advert for the conspiracy, it might be some in-joke but I recall that the guy (friend of a friend, I should add) posting it around Facebook seemed to have a load of other conspiracy gump on his profile - including a picture that apparently shows a bridge on the moon! (ooh, and the "Erich von Däniken's Official Fan Page" apparently, I'll stop stalking now, but this tells me all I need to know.) I mean, shitting Christ there are some whacked out things out there... ^theist 00:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

See also

• Project Blue Beam ħuman 01:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, of course, step 2. I forgot about that. ^theist 01:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Still fucking retarded, though. ^theist 01:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to throw the link to our article in, in case anybody wanted to improve it. ħuman 06:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I added the projection mapping thing to the article. Although the link is so tenuous and unstated that I'm not sure if it works... ^theist 13:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What Darwin Never Knew

Don't know if anybody ever had the chance to watch this documentary by PBS' NOVA program, but I think it is absolutely one of the most educational works surround the theory of evolution that I have ever seen. LimpWrist (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if I remember correctly, I posted something about this a while back. It was an interesting program, though, nonetheless. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 12:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And in a related vein, David Attenborough has a new series First Life. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

So I bought that book by that guy you guys keep talking about

7 minutes ago I just bought Dawkin's book, because it was 67% off. I have not read anything by him before, and I have only read 1 "atheist" text before: 'The Rational Optimist' so here I go caving in to the oh-so subtle peer pressure of this site. I'm going to try to read some of it before my church group meeting tomorrow, in ~17 hours. I was raised quasi-fundamentalist, and remain quasi-theistic. You may commence betting. The reputation of what I guess is your quasi-authority figure is at stake. Tyrannis (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean The God Delusion. Fuck^that 21:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. was looking for some light reading and saw the shiny silver and the big 67% off sticker. Tyrannis (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't base your opinion of him on that one; his other books, about biology and evolution and stuff, are very good. Authority figure? Oh, give me a break... anyway, hope you enjoy it! ħuman 01:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

ListenerX^TalkerX 01:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly is the peer pressure to read that, exactly? Yeah, it appears on most lists of books featured on RW, but no more so than Carl Sagan - and I'd wager that there's more pressure to read Sagan than Dawkins - but are you suggesting that people are forcing you to read the Good Word of our Lord and Savior Richard Dawkins?? ^theist 08:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I just have bad luck with the random article button, as that is how I get around here. Sadly, I have never even seen a copy of any of his other books save in pictures. I have read the old testament, parts of the new, and I have a copy of a Hindu text around here somewhere. I figured that I've been on this site for about ten months, might as well see what the fuss is about. I have heard of Sagan, but rarely in the articles I've read here, except, obviously Carl Sagan. I've actually seen loads Sagan on 4chan(they seem to actually love him). But this is Louisiana, and acquiring any "atheist" texts is hard, even in "liberal" Baton Rouge. At our largest bookstore, they get about 2/3 of a shelf, none of it Dawkins or Sagan. At the LSU bookstore, there were 3 copies of The God Delusion. I had $7.42, so I bought the book and a cup of tea, saying to myself, "hey it's that book by that guy those people on RW, 4chan, and the lonely SAAD people keep talking about. I have 80 minutes till my church meeting and am on page 152(paperback edition). It has given me some serious food for thought, and I hope to finish it by this evening. I actually have a lot of strange books on my shelf, hopefully I can hide this or loan it to a friend after I am done with it, or I risk rather severe punishment. Saying anything negative about Christianity has recently become a forbidden topic at my house, after my sister found FSTDT. I hate to think what this book would cause. Also, almost every atheist blog and all the one I have talked to have mentioned him as sort of a quasi authority figure, though several disapprove of him.Tyrannis (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

He's an authority figure in the sense that he's vocal, passionate and happily represents people that go otherwise completely unrepresented. He's also written a lot and well summarised the ideas that he stands behind. So he may also be an authority in terms of knowing what he's talking about and being a good starting point. But I do hope you're not caught with it, if you combined it with the Little Red Book you'd probably be summarily executed. You could have the excuse that you're just curious and don't want to dismiss it without reading it first (akin to the Reasoning with Vampires blog) but if things are as you describe you're not in the position where that sort of thing will wash. Indeed, I remember at least one prominent Christian political figure in the US saying something along the lines of "even knowing about your philosophy [atheism] is dangerous". ^theist 12:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite attending an incredibly liberal church, my mother is a near fundamentalist. This site is not safe to use when she is around, nor is Wikipedia. Luckily, she is not very technically competent. Linux confuses her, so as long as I am not under one of her arbitrary Internet bans, I can browse and edit this site from the safety of my room, the door of which I am not allowed to shut. I owned a rifle at 12, a shotgun at 14, and a handgun at 18, yet I could not watch R rated movies until 19. I am not permitted to play video games unless it is the summer or a holiday. Most of my editing binges here are at college, at work, or when she is on vacation, like she is now. My father is much more easy going, he does not care what I do, so long as it is not illegal, but he works 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off. My friends and I are pooling money and making plans for me to move to an apartment by May, with dad backing me. So yeah, I have decided to hide this book before she returns Friday. Tyrannis (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact you have to hide a copy of The God Delusion is why Dawkins had to write it in the first place. ^theist 15:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And now the weather has took a turn for the worse, there are people with posters of baby heads on pikes outside the student Union, and the chair has called me to his office. No joke.Tyrannis (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Using our search button to the left I find about 50 references to The God Delusion over the entire history of the site (assuming that I did it properly). Given the nature of the site I don't think that that's a particularly obsessive number and furthermore not all the references are complementary. But tell us what you think about it when you finish.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins get 957. Chair did not want my head, only my picture, as he wants to present me to the ACM later. page 184. Tyrannis (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes but Dawkins is a lot more than God Delusion. He is also a great evolutionary biologist; a person who has his position as "professor" debated; a man who may or may not have machismo; one of the founders of the atheist bus campaign; a hate-figure at CP; a viewer of "Expelled" and a crusader against pseudoscience. There is little wonder that he is mentioned multiple times.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Idea for you - sacrifice a similarly-sized crap novel (remove all pages) and wrap TGD in it, put on bookshelf. Then you can keep it with much less fear of disembowelment. ħuman 19:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm calling it a night at page 240. I've decided to hide the book in one of my boxes of Star Wars Cards, as no one ever goes in there anyway. I need to study for my Mechanics-II test now. Tyrannis (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, which little red book? Wikipedia gives a dozen of them. Mao's?Tyrannis (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

394. Class Tyrannis (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes Mao's. What other one would work in this context? Well, glad you're still alive. Reading Dawkins at that sort of pace would kill even the hardiest of indiviudals. ^theist 16:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This is actually really slow for me.The more a book makes me think, the slower I read it. For example, it only takes me ~3.5 hours for Harry Potter book 7, while Dawkins, Asimov, and Will Durant take much longer.Tyrannis (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Will report in tomorrow, need sleep, tea, wassail, probably not in that order. Tyrannis (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Dawkin's book has given me much food for thought. So, I may be away for a while reading the Ebon Musings. Also, I will try to pick up some of Sagan's books if I can find any, LSU does have a AADH society, I'll see if any of them has a copy. Cheerio, Tyrannis (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose if it makes you think a little more, it's done its job. ^theist 13:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I went to church today. I coughed through the hymns and thought about GURPS during the offertory. Dawkin's book, and the Ebon Musings have had a profound effect on me. Any one got any thoughts on how my church group meeting on Tuesday will go? Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 01:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Online privacy, Part 32,567

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1324385/Other-nations-stop-Google-acting-like-Peeping-Tom-Why-we.html

Sigh. Okay, so it was probably a mistake for Google to stick packet sniffers into their Street View cars, but Halfon here has made one massive omission in his detail; wireless security. It may be a minor quibble to some, but to me this constitutes deceit, almost to the level of propaganda. He makes absolutely no mention of secured vs unsecured connections and that, to me, alters the piece entirely from the reality ("Google is exploiting people's ignorance and stupidity") to something far more sinister but not reflected in reality ("Google are evil hackers!"). Google only sniffed out things that people were putting out into the open willingly, as if they stood at their windows and shouted it to the world. Certainly, if I spray paint my phone number onto a road, I can't claim that my privacy is violated when someone reads it. Really, people going around and perpetuating this mantra-like myth that Facebook and Google are violating people's right to privacy piss me off. If you're using unsecured Wi-Fi, if you open your Facebook account to the world, if you even touch the internet, it's not these people, it's YOU and YOU ALONE that has violated your privacy. Why does the media still not get this? ^theist 14:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

When this broke a couple of days ago it was discussed on BBC News24 and the guest expert said that it happened a couple of years ago when most home wireless networks weren't secured unlike now where most are locked down. While security measures probably have been tightened with OS upgrades and better default settings on new equipment, I doubt that general public awareness of security has improved much. Also, I find constant public CCTV monitoring much more of a Big Brother society than a one-off image by Google.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The CCTV stuff can be exaggerated as well. An awful lot of CCTV footage is not routinely monitored, and a lot is not even recorded, or is recorded and only stored fro short periods of time. Worm^{(t | c)} 14:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Perspective: Google's revenue is 1/3 of UK's defense budget, and they probably have enough processing power to DoS, say, the London Internet Exchange as well as brute force their way through the author's mom protected wifi. Millions of people give them their email willingly (gmail) and the same people probably reuse the same password for their online banking accounts as well. I think that if they wanted to be evil, they can do so much more effectively. Sen (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The episode of Bullshit! on the Big Brother thing is quite interesting if you want to look into CCTV. Yeah, being libertarians they gawk at how many CCTV cameras are in London, but their bullshit experiment where they tried to get someone to "spy" on a terrorist is plain amsuing because he just got distracted too easily by the couple having sex in the next house. Also Google fails at evil. ^theist 15:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, xkcd said it; it must be true! Educated time Hoover! 17:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, he does mention security - once, and then he ignores it. And the facebook thing is really silly. The closing ominous line about cloud computing made it to CP's main page, by the way (see the TRS-80 section at talk wigo cp). ħuman 13:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

He mentions password protection but that's not the whole story nor is it a thorough description of how wireless security works. If you want to get a point about internet privacy and security across to people, you should mention it at every turn! It's like a "paragraph 19" thing in that it comes at the wrong point in the story. The rest of the piece implies that Google sniffed at any wireless modem, possibly intentionally looking for password data - and that's a complete misrepresentation of what happened. I think it's just a politician looking for an easy ground to fight on, exploiting people's hyped-up fears about privacy and mistrust of large corporations like Google. ^theist 13:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, true. I was only pointing out that the article did, briefly, and lamely, mention security. From there the article should have been all about that, I agree. ħuman 14:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I should admit I actually missed it the first time around. 15:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Gimme money

The pope "visit" to Scotland^{[Saloon bars passim]} didn't come cheap. Now the Catholics of the country are being asked for another £800,000 (that'a slightly over $1,000;000). that doesn't include the several millions the taxpayer paid. Wonder how much it'll be when the English bill comes in. 14:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh. That's pocket change compared to what the church has paid or owes for other things... Bondurant (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I still can't quite figure out how it cost that much... ^theist 00:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Specialized prostitutes are much more expensive than whoever is next in line. Yes, I said it. ħuman 01:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"Specialized"? ... ... ... ... ^theist 01:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you know, like a redhead, a dominatrix, a paraplegic, or... "young looking"... ħuman 18:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

^theist 15:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Down & up again

“”Once again God tried to smite our site, this time by blowing down a tree limb on the power lines to my neighborhood. But he forgot about the utility people who fixed. But apparently my modem didn't boot back up correctly and that's why the site was down. Maybe its time to start thinking about commercial hosting again. I am making more money a month than I was 3 years ago...... POSTED BY T. TOULOUSE AT 4:17 PM 0 COMMENTS

—http://rationalwiki.blogspot.com/2010/10/gods-impotent-rage.html

You'r speelinge haz impooved, Trent. 20:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I was the one who commented first :P Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 21:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am actually serious about going back to commercial hosting. Going away on any sort of trip I am constantly worried about RW going down, also I am suppose to be done with my Ph.D. this summer which means I will be moving...somewhere...so we will likely need to move to commercial hosting then anyway.

There is a few "game changers" to about moving back to commercial hosting. The first is the cost for a VPS has gone down a good chunk from 3 years ago. Also There is more money available. When we moved to a private box we had to beg and scrounge to get $50. We raised $400 in a week during the last donation drive. I am also no longer dirt poor, and have a little extra money that I can afford to fill in any gaps. tmtoulouse 03:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

While it is good to know that we had success with the last fund raising it should not fall to Trent to keep the site afloat. Especially as it has been established as a foundation.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The December fundraiser for 2011Q1 will tell us a lot. We are also discussing slowly building a little buffer money, or nest egg, to deal with unforeseen expense, etc., to make sure Trent doesn't get stuck, if at all possible. ħuman 22:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think should remain optimistic and assume the last one wasn't a one-off. ^theist 15:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Server move

So it is being talked about randomly but making it more clear that I am planning to go back to commercial hosting for RW. Briefly some reasons:

1. I have less time than ever to do on-site tech support, trying to finish my doctorate in uhh 7 months?
2. I will be moving at the end of my program and will not be able to host the site anyway for a while, so will have to do it soon anyway.
3. VPS hosting has gotten cheaper
4. We are more successful at raising money, and I personally have more money I an throw at RW
5. Anytime I leave for any period of time I am always stressed about RW going down, don't want that anymore!

For the most part this should have no noticeable effect apart from a period of downtime during the actual move so those of you who just wanna use RW and don't care about how the sausage is made shouldn't need to worry. We will get a few benefits like much better upload bandwidth that should help with traffic spikes.

The "new" rw can currently be reached by pointing your browser to RationalBeta. If anyone is bored I would like to encourage people to poke around a little bit looking for anything that appears to be broken and let me know. tmtoulouse 22:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

When we move, can you publish the new IP addy for addicts who can't wait for it to propagate to get their fix? ħuman 22:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. tmtoulouse 22:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that, before we move. Just put it here a couple days in advance, or on the tech blog? ħuman 22:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

184.106.147.99 is RationalBeta's IP (which is giving me a 500, FWIW). Educated time Hoover! 08:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I can gather, there's some serious dicking about with RationalBeta going on so don't be surprised if it's bollocked. ^theist 15:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Geek and gamer girls

Moving on to some slightly more humorous misogyny. See how many nerd references you can catch first time. http://www.break.com/break-originals/other-funny-stuff/geek-and-gamer-girls-anthem ^theist 00:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Monsters

I really enjoyed District 9 and this upcoming movie looks damned cool. Trailer here. Ace^{word up} 03:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Must see. I've been so desperate for a good giant monster movie, or just a monster movie. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 04:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Cloverfeild was fucking crap and there hasn't been much else on offer. Ace^{word up} 04:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Although, I'm not sure if the monster genre can recover from this clusterfuck. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 09:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Most people are pretty forgiving of the B movies, they understand that they're not meant to be serious... Cloverfield on the other hand was god awful. Motion sickness, a convoluted storyline and a monster that nobody knew fuck-all about, what a great night. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 10:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

All I needed to know was "monster genre" and "clusterfuck" and I knew what you were talking about. I'm not sure whether The Asylum are awesome, or the worst thing to happen in movie making ever. ^theist 13:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think I can say with all honesty that I have seen the worst monster story ever made. It was from a Cracked.com list, so I have only myself to blame. Still, I present, for your viewing pleasure, the Killer Lampshade from Hausu (House). --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Snowbeast. It is in PD on archive.org. Watch it. Weep. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 13:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol, here could be something to add to my "watch all Alan Smithee's films" watch the worst (as in awful) horror movies ever. I can see Italian zombie movies in my future. --PsyGremlin講話 13:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Pah! There are few things worse than Italian killer ape films! Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 13:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen Hausu. I won't say it's good, but it's definitely not dull. --Gulik (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of Snowbeast. I don't know which is worse, the monster, the script or the acting... Totnesmartin (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Snowbeast is a tradition in my house. I have 2 DVDs, and the vid file. I love and hate it at the same time. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 21:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Airline security redux

AQITAP HQ?

This weekend I should have been in Yemen but how things change. Ex Labour politician John Reid is crying about how we shouldn't let our guard down but the current procedures haven't helped in this instance. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The media has been waffling on about the bombs being concealed in inkjet cartridges yet all the pictures released show a laser printer and toner cartridge. The mass-media generally don't do technology very well.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A Clockwork Orange

Just wondering what the opinions are here before I buy it on the Playstation Network.--Thanatos (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Great movie, another Kubrick masterpiece. It's worth the buy, you'll rewatch it. Lot's of interesting reads about the movie on the net Example Alain (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It's really worth just buying the Kubrick box set, I don't think there's a clinker in the lot. ħuman 22:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I find Clockwork Orange a bit disappointing, compared with other Kubrick films. I enjoyed it the first time I saw it, then read the book; then I could see everything that was wrong with the adaptation. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The book is simply too good. If you haven't read it yet, Thanatos, do it before seeing the movie. As Weaseloid mentions, reading it would ruin the movie to a certain extent, but reading it with a blank mind will probably make you enjoy those pages even more. Best.--Xyr (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a bit of change involved between film and book, I was concerned with that link above saying it was a faithful adaptation. IIRC, Burgess himself didn't like it and the ending completely changed the entire point. The whole theme is that Alex's violent tendencies and behaviour had no rational explanation and just ended because he grew out of it - hence it ending on chapter 21, i.e., 21 years old and now an adult. Which is kind of reflected in reality, that kids just grow out of being dicks at some point (turning into adult dicks, certainly, but in different fashion). By contrast Kubrick implied a lot of social decline and seemed to end it on a very open-ended down note. Although WP has just informed me that this may be because US publishers removed the 21st chapter and Kubrick wasn't familiar with it. ^theist 01:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Now I have to read it again and watch it again so I can argue with you! ħuman 06:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The feeling I got from the book was, kind of like American Psycho, that it was a section of his life, a narrative that started before the book and continued after. Just a part of someones life, without describing the end or the beginning. Ace^{word up} 07:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The reader/viewer sees the world through Alex's eyes (as narrator) meaning that all the violence in the first part of the narrative (perpetrated by Alex & the droogs) is portrayed as fun & games (how Alex experiences it) & it only becomes traumatic in the later parts when Alex himself becomes the victim. How the novel accomplishes this is Alex describing his crimes casually & in silly Nadsat slang in such a way to make the cruelty seem like fun, though the reader is also aware of how immoral his actions actually are. How the movie accomplishes the same thing is by watering down the severity of the crimes & by making the victims exaggeratedly ridiculous. A scene in which Alex rapes two pre-pubescent girls after luring them back to his apartment is replaced by a scene of comically speeded up consensual sex with two teenage nymphos. The helpless elderly woman Alex beats to death in her home is replaced by a sex-obsessed middle-aged woman with a house full of penis statues & suchlike. The writer who the droogs beat up & whose wife they rape is cantankerous and unlikeable. In the film's portayal, it is as if these victims deserve the treatment they get from the gang. All of this means that the film has much less impact than the book in terms of the negative portrayal of violence, and instead portrays it fairly positively, leading to the controversies which prompted Kubrick to withdraw the film in the UK. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

like (actually, as somebody who hasn't read the book, now I must find and read it). --PsyGremlinZungumza! 09:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Very nice overview, Veisel, a shame it will be pibotted in two days. Can we haz article maybe to save it forever?

Excellent, and thank you for your help after I copy/pasted your work into my EdStub! ħuman 14:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds about right to me. Though that said, I'm not sure how film could portray the violence as Alex sees it (fun & games) without making it look like it's "endorsing" it and being controversial because of it. Film doesn't give us the ability to see it through Alex's eyes, as such, and it'd be impossible to sympathise with him if what he did in the first half was portrayed faithfully to the book. You need that sympathy for the second half to have any impact, which is at the expense of watering down the ultra-violence to comedy. ^theist 15:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will read the novel first, then buy the movie. Thanks for the comments!--Thanatos (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a particular need to get the book first. It's reasonably short, of course, but the amount of Nadsat in it means you either go slowly or read it six times before finally understanding it. ^theist 00:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're in a hurry, about half the editions I have seen include a "dictionary section" for the main Nadsat words. Using it, you should be able to read normally after the 1st quarter of the book, Thanatos. In any case, you will have to re-read it later to fully enjoy the language of the initial chapters :-)--Xyr (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Movies are a completely different medium to novels and have to work in different ways. I think it is unfair to compare the two; each should be judged on their own merits.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Especially in Kubrick's case, he tooks a story he liked as a frame for his movies but then he did what he wanted to do with it. Stephen King Hated The Shining but imho it's the most terrifying horror picture ever with tons of subtext in bonus -- Alain, too lazy to log in.

Tell that to Hitchhiker's Guide fans who crapped on the movie for not being 100% exactly like the book/tv series/radio play/towel/comic/video game... Adaptations have to adapt, the clue's in the name. I've never understood why people don't seem to understand this and bitch and moan when things are changed. ^theist 18:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What I did on my October 30th Vacation

Okay so my story about the Rally to Restore Sanity and Or Fear isn't fully completed right now but for those who don't know about it I might as well post it. Also, I'm taking Q&As.Jsonitsac (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Good write up, in fact with some tweaks, this should go in mainspace, yes? --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope we end up with a good article about it, with much first-hand commentary, yes! ħuman 06:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I give you the 100 best signs from the rally. --PsyGremlinTala! 11:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

While there were many great signs there, there were also a couple-three really stupid ones. Oh well. People "turning up" is always a good thing. ħuman 12:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the pictures... by any chance, did someone who was there get number 88's phone number? MDB (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

When I saw the title "100 best signs" I cringed a little but gave a silent snort at the "CANYA TELL IM NOT HOOKED ON FONIX".  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So what now

so what now --AmazingTechnicolorCheeseWedge (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Now we take the day off so as to be well rested tomorrow. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 06:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Haha, Goonie talking to hisself! ħuman 07:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You wish. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 07:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Pretty!

• 
• 
• 

Mother Nature kinda rocks that way. Either that, or the End Times are upon us. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 08:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

RW is almost what I'm looking for

For some time I've been looking for a "AtheistPedia", which would be a wiki encyclopedy with an atheist editorial line. RationalWiki seems to be almost exactly what I was looking for, except that it is a bit too affirmative for my taste. Instead of stressing on denoucing irrational thoughts, I think it would be better just to ignore them and thus not accepting them in the encyclopedy.

As I see it, a rationalwiki would be pretty much exactly like wikipedia, except that all mention of religious or other supernatural or superstition belief would not be accepted as a reference.

--Grondilu (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome onboard! However the crucial point here is that RationalWiki is not, was never intended to be, nor will ever be, an encyclopaedia. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

RW started as a counterpoint to the craziness of Conservapedia but very soon decided that our mission was combating crazies and authoritarians in general. Trying to recreate WP sans religion is rather an epic task. Also I don't think one can ignore religion, it is too deeply engrained in our history and culture, and is not likely to disappear soon. So we just do our bit to mock the credulous and hope that more people can at least think for themselves even if they continue having some sort of magical belief system.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What would be the point in refuting stuff if it was never mentioned? That's just deceit and a naive attempt to live in a fantasy world where these things don't exist. You can see such things at "that other" wiki project where references are ignored if they're too liberal or don't promote a link between breast cancer and abortion. RW shouldn't be Wikipedia, that's stupid as it's already got a policy that prevents religious belief being used as a reference... except to state what that belief is. WP is pretty pro-science and more or less completely secular so what you appear to be looking for is, in fact, Wikipedia. ^theist 18:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Purpose

Grondilu has fallen for a common misconception. The "wiki" suffix/prefix has become almost synonymous with "encyclopædia". Just checked and nowhere on Main Page is there the reminder: "RationalWiki is NOT an encyclopædia". Anyone think it ought to be there? 17:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so really. The mission is right there ("what RW is") and if one clicks on the "RationalWiki" link, the second section header is "RW is not an encyclopedia". ħuman 18:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought of adding something on those lines ages ago, but I couldn't think of a wording that wasn't awkward and clunky-sounding. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Overhauling a page.

If I'm interested in really going over the pages about British Prime Ministers, like our Tony Blair article, which is pretty lightweight and too much snark, not enough conten at the moment, do I just go ahead, or try to get some talk about it going? Obviously these pages need plenty of snark, but I'd like them to be a bit more informative. Dalek (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to be safe, do it in a sandbox, then ask on the talk page of the article. If no-one responds in a few days or so, go ahead. -- Nx / talk 16:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

But don't forget the snark! 17:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I find this rather interesting:

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/gay-sex-vs-straight-sex/ 3.5 million database. Now that's what I call a statistical sample. As usual conservative opinions are (spoiler alert) BS. Sen (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

On a similar-ish vein I have found Google Trends Google Trends and Google Insights to be quite interesting to poke around. Especially the search interest by region features. Sen (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

They've been WIGO'd at some point. A lot of the stats research they've done recently on okcupid has been quite interesting. ^theist 21:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Official election rant thread:

In 2 years we go from a tsunami ourselves with sweeps of the house, senate, presidency, and governorships and now we are about to get our asses handed to us. Sure we did some good things but the Republicans have done a pretty good job of stopping and reversing the momentum from 08. Now we have dems that are actively campaigning against their own party, leader, and agenda and we have some races with what can only be described as absolute conservative nutcases. How the hell, what the.../spits... I am so pissed at my "side" right now for utterly screwing the pooch and squandering a massive opportunity. I feel the dems deserve to lose just for their stupidity. If you agree or disagree feel free to rant all you want, I will be all day tomorrow. Wasted, wasted, WASTED the past two years!!!! Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 21:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Such is the cycle. But yeah, rant. Everyone here is trying to paint themselves conservative. Our "Liberal" is more conservative than most Republicans. And until a prominent tea party candidate gets caught with a live boy or dead girl, or a to quote WH40k "Plague of Unbelief" occurs, It will be like a pendulum. Each side becoming elected and undoing what the precious side did. If they last long enough, there might be changes.Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 21:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's why democracy just doesn't work. ^theist 21:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So what should we replace it with? Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 22:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Empire - ♫ DAHHHHH duh daaaaaaa duhdaduhdaduhdaduhdadada DAAA - DAAAAA duh duh da DAHH DAHHH! ♫-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

For the EMPRAH!!!Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 22:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Or:

• Build a really big wall around the area containing buildings relating to governing in Washington.
• Hold a random lottery in which all citizens on record (Social Security number led would probably be best) are in the mix. Exclude those:

• Currently in psychiatric units or in prison.
• Former politicians.

• 501 citizens are picked entirely at random (10 from each state, plus one from the Washington DC area) and they, and their immediate families are immediately shipped into the walled zone and are allowed no contact with people from outside the walled zone. They would still have access to news, etc. There would be a fixed 10 from each state, regardless of the number of people living in the state. If you think you are being underrepresented, tough, move to a state with a lower population.
• These 500 citizens would then make up a one house congress that makes the laws and policies at a federal level. If these citizens want committees then that's fine, but the committees would be made up of x chosen citizens. Theses committees could only here evidence from those with university level education in the subject at hand. Ideas, bills, whatever gets brought up in congress becomes law if it is passed by a simple majority vote. Laws passed like this would then immediately pass to a court specifically setup to immediately rule on the constitutionality of the law. If it passes that stage then it's law.
• At the end of five years you turf out the 501 citizens and choose 501 more at random.

I don't know what you'd call it - maybe a conscriptocracy.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Some sort of Demarchy is suppose. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 22:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is textbook Demarchy. Though I've always thought we should do local representation the exact same way as jury service, so it was randomly selected and people served for a few months at a time - although it might worth considering an "opt-out" system for that the same way jury service works. That avoids the potential for career politicians to dick about while we just get a good selection of people to hear out laws and vote on them. If they trust random members of the public to run the justice system, I'm sure they can do it with the legal system. Then the executive and cabinet branch of government would be done on an interview basis. Now, I've heard people respond to this with "well who does the interviewing?" but there are ways around it, especially once you've got the whole thing up and running and your cabinet runs like a corporation. The only remaining thing is to just shoot the protesters, it can't go wrong. ^theist 00:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This is fucking brilliant. Newsnight is covering the midterm elections and doing a piece on the Teabaggers. So Peter Marshall goes and interviews a typical, grassroots, Teabagger who tells him he doesn't understand where this whole issue of race has come from, and then states that he didn't bring up this whole issue of race and tries to prove this by saying that he was so naive on the issue of race that (and yeah you'll love this):

“”I didn't know that (the word) negro wasn't to be used

Oh yeah, that's one non-racist Teabagger, right there.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Fucker. How would you like it I call you a damnfool buckra? I cannot abide racists. Of any sort. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 23:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In case I disappear

• 

  In case I disappear

• 

  Compare and contrast

• 

  Bow and tremble in terror

• 

  I wanted to try Schrödinger's experiment. Sakura said, "Okay, you get in the box then." She had good taste in games though.

• 

  Thanks, but do you have one in blue?

• 

  I'm funny how? Funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you?

• 2010-10-31-195249.jpg

  Kneel before White Cat

• Browncat.jpg

  Brown Cat is actually quite nice

I wish to present the following evidence and suspect. Am looking after neighbour's puddy tat, but I fear for my life. So, if I'm found butchered in my bed, please direct all enquiries in Thug's (yes, that's the cat's name) direction. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 09:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Aww, what a lovely cat. perhaps you could go into the countryside and grab some hyenas or a flange of baboons to defend yourself with? Totnesmartin (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Phalange? ħuman 14:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Minge of baboons, flange of baboons, fanny, snizz, quim, whatever, Huw. 14:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

A group of baboons is called a troop. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 15:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Methinks Martin from Totnes was being droll. 15:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't anybody appreciate good comedy? Totnesmartin (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, should your heir inherit your account here? So you have an up to date will? Did you remember to leave RW some money? These are critical questions!Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 15:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a much more frightening puddy tat 15:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that cat is the spitting image of one of my cats. I'll post a piccy in a bit. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's nothing... I have just posted a picture of my own cat staring down pure evil in the face of my sister's own little demon. SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 20:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

My former bundle of evil terror.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

One of my parents' cats: pure evil. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Behold! My creativly named White Cat, Lord of the Northern Abyss! Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 00:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

White Cat is evil because he wakes up at 4am, and hates my testicles. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 22:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

White Cat sounds very proud of his, er, whiteness. I hope he isn't racist. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, he and Brown Cat are friends. Yeah, I'm not very good at naming cats. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 11:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Le pouf célèbre Speaks through his arse

Stephen Fry is wrong; so wrong! He says women don't enjoy sex. WRONG, Stephen, WRONG. Mebbe it's just that they don't enjoy it with you? (before anyone takes umbrage at the header: it's a Monty Python quote) 21:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, next time Jo sees him she'll probably set him straight, so to speak. I can't see Emma Thompson not having a few words with him as well.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am very grateful that I happen to know that Fry is talking complete bollocks. Is this yet another case of Someone-I-was-once-a-fan-of-turns-out-to-be-a-right-old-twat-ism? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 21:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

EC) I have to confess to an inside track: I know someone who's currently living wth an ex girl friend (yes you read that right) of his. Can't betray a confidence but ... 21:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(lots of ECs)Hmmm... I'm slightly torn because on the one hand his reasoning seems sound enough when he expands on what he says, it's true that you don't get "straight cruising" in the same way as "gay cruising" and other examples. And I do think that, very generally speaking, women value a relationship over sex. But I think he's highly, highly, highly generalising his point, almost too much when he basically concludes "therefore women must hate sex". That's not true, head out getting wrecked on a Friday night and it's the women that are bordering on being the nastier sex-obsessed predators - and seeing a Hen Night out in the street scares the fuck out me far more than a Stag Night. Iit might be because he's coming from the perspective of a gay person, who is - and always will be - a minority in society. So you get LGBT movements, you get gay nights in nightclubs, you get gay dating services... all this combines to give the impression that sex is promiscuous, open and facilitated. These are things you don't really get in the straight community - indeed you don't really get a "straight community" do you? If you're gay or an LGBT activist your sexuality is at the fore, like a fundamentalist Christian who obviously has their religion at the fore. Everyone else, on the other hand, don't and it can seem a little weird. So he's interpreting a lack of organised sexuality as a lack of interest, when it reality it lacks organisation because it doesn't need it! Every night is "straight night" and everywhere is "straight cruising". ^theist 21:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Or he could be talking bollocks because he's a manic-depressive, we do do that, especially when on the up-swing.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I was more surprised when it said he was knobbing 25yo actor Steven Webb. You just don't expect that kind of thing from Fry--AMassiveGay (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I can kindof see where he's coming from, in that women's sex drive is rather different from men's and, in general, women don't actively go in pursuit of sex in the same way that many men do. But to conclude from that that women actually dislike sex & put up with it as a sacrifice for emotional stability is embarrassingly Victorian. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Armond put it fairly well above. Anyway, Fry's comments are pure bollocks, of course. To add to the Mustelid's comment, at the very least, the difference in women's sexual response is a key here. A bloke who wants to get his rocks off can be reasonably sure of a good time shagging a completely random partner. A Sheila up for a little slap and tickle might be more inclined to vet her prospective lover a bit more, just to increase the odds of actually getting her rock off. Also also, of course, for how many millennia have the ladies been saddled with the more encumbering side effects of sex?? Leading them to choose partners who they either trust to be careful as hell or potential husband/father units. ħuman 06:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In general I think we put quality before quantity, so to a guy looking for another notch on his tally stick it might seem that we're not interested in sex when we're just not that interested in him (or his mates).  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Q: How do you make a woman orgasm?
• A: Who cares? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Spoken from the heart.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems Fry is now claiming misquoting, etc. I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt here - I can see how those comments, uttered with a raised eyebrow and a cheeky grin, could come out dry and cold in print...maybe. Nonetheless, it's still bollocks - on a number of occasions I've encountered women whose sexual appetites would put any member of a 1970's stadium rock band to shame. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Orgasms are like opinions; mine's more important and I don't care if she has one. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll chalk his drama whoring up to the manic depression. Though it seems to back up my earlier assessment that the quote was him coming from the perspective of a gay man who can access facilitated casual sex. Odd; indeed, wrong; certainly, serious; I doubt it. ^theist 22:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Frytweet"So some fucking paper misquotes a humorous interview I gave, which itself misquoted me and now I'm the Antichrist. I give up. Bye bye" 07:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh for fucks sake, not again. "No longer in service". D'yknow, I really love Stephen Fry to bits, but I get really annoyed when he has his hissy fits and quits Twitter saying he's never coming back. He could have just issued a statement saying what really happened and then wait for it to blow over. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Poll Closing Times

In case anybody's planning to stay glued to the TV / web browser tomorrow night, here is a list of all the times when the polls close. For fellow Brits, ET is four hours ahead of BST. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should stay up again as we did for Obama's victory two years ago? What a night that was! Although, staying up all night to watch idiots like Sharron Angle winning might just be worth a miss. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't ET 4 hours behind BST? ħuman 20:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in Central, -5, so yes Eastern is -4. In my district all the Republicans are gven 98%+ reelection chances, as they had no real challengers. Only Lt. Governor is up in the air here. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 20:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm planning on spending most of tomorrow evening depressed.

At least the major elections in my district in Maryland aren't close. Barbara Mikulski and Steny Hoyer might as well be running unopposed for the Senate and House respectively, and even the Governor's race us supposed to pretty easily re-elect Democrat Martin O'Malley as governor. Even if Bob Ehrlich, the Republican, won, it wouldn't be major loss in Maryland -- he's a very moderate Republican and would be a conservative Democrat is a more "red" state. MDB (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There is now no difference in the platform of either Lt. Gov. Canidate. Really. How lovely. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 21:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

@Human - yes, 4 hours behind - I got confused. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Try interacting with Ace. I don't even know what day it is where he is, it varies from last week to next year, plus or minus eleven hours. ħuman 01:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Less than 5 hours to go till the polls start to close. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 17:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

How about a page where we all make our guesses? A wikitable with a senate and house and comments column? Dalek (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. How do you make wikitables? Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 17:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Prediction and whining forum is here. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 18:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)