RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the blogosphere?/Archive3

This is an archive page, last updated 16 October 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>

, (new)(back)

Teabagger turnout

I'm guessing this actually was "grassroots" and the Teabagger astroturf groups aren't around anymore now that the election is over. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Atla$ $hrugged Reviews

I'm guessing the randroids will be taking the bad reviews one of two ways. Some will be upset about how poorly their favorite book translated to the big screen and will complain that the producers ruined the story. The others will probably go after the critics who just "don't get it." I think they might get split down the middle, but I'm not sure. Anyway, what do you think? Jsonitsac (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

On Roger Ebert's site, he gave it one star. The reader rating was four stars .,. before the film had actually been released - David Gerard (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet on the tried and true "Libruhl Media" angle. Why fix what isn't broken? If the second part loses funding, or goes straight to DVD, it will because the Liberal Media is suppressing the film to keep it's truths out of the public's mind. God that lat part hurt to type. Majintahu (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Literary theory

I started to smell bullshit when I took a literature class and was told that the main objective, when choosing a topic of research in that field, is to select an hypothesis that will generate controversy and debate, rather than a correct one. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I always wanted to be able to deconstruct a take-out menu, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it should be made clearer

I am having a quick look at some of the things, but quite a few items belong here belong on Clogo or world. If it is a major news source CBS for example it is world, but not if it is an opinion piece. If the person is sprouting ignorant shit, it is clogo. Can the header be made clearer? - π 01:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Egnorance" is a tricky one - it's the Fountain of Clog, but the post linking to it is blog - David Gerard (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you know? Were you there? Redux

I always thought the definitive (snarky) answer to this should be to say "No, but I will tell you what I was there for. This one time, I ate an entire blotter of acid and saw newspaper taxis and marmalade skies. They exist for sure. You know how I know? I was fucking there, man. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That five things atheists get wrong thing

Really is an apalling article. Take the final thing: that atheists claim to be able to recognise the differences between religions. Hur, hur if they can recognise the differences why does Greta Christina say they're all "crazy"? If Scofield had read (and understood) Christina's article he would have seen that Christina's point is that although there are lots of differences between religions the level of crazy isn't one of them. And she writes about it, to other atheists, because other atheists disagree with her.

After reading the Scofield's article my desk has a large forehead shaped dent in it. There is no hope. There is too much stupid. We are doomed. Toffeeman (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Boobs

RE:http://boobsdontworkthatway.tumblr.com

Yeah, I've played this game before. That way madness lies. ADK^{...I'll seize your lollipop!} 21:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, oh my. It seems to me that everything I have ever said about you is.... so true.... --Idiot number 59 (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Murdering Assange

RE: http://www.peopleokwithmurderingassange.com/

You see, this is the sort of rhetoric we regularly get from right-wing nationalists. Yet we're supposed to be surprised when right-wing nationalists like McVeigh or Breivik go on rampages. This is just fucking nuts. ADK^{...I'll orate your orc!} 12:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the quote by Bob Beckel, saying that Assange has broken "every law of the United States" and therefore he deserves to die. For one thing, he hasn't exactly broken every law... and people like this are so thick and hateful it makes me want to wretch. άλφα^Talk 23:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Also nice, John Hawkins: "Julian Assange is not an American citizen and he has no constitutional rights. So, there's no reason that the CIA can't kill him. Moreover, ask yourself a simple question: If Julian Assange is shot in the head tomorrow or if his car is blown up when he turns the key, what message do you think that would send about releasing sensitive American data?"

As I am not an American citizen, I have no rights. Human Rights, you fucking asshole? And the other thing is, if they actually would kill Assange, the leaks won't stop, the exact opposite would happen as this is not just Assange but hundreds of people from all over the world that do this stuff. And they would probably release even more. --★uːʤɱ federalist 00:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Freethought blogs

We have a link to Pharyngula in the blogroll on this page, to the scienceblogs version. Should this be changed to the Freethought blogs version? Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 06:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

PZ says FTB by preference. I've changed it - David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Dishonest TV producers

As that video seems to contain Channel 4 content so I can't see it (this I will never understand) from the gist of the summary is it similar to the Screenwipe episode where Charlie Brooker was making his own reality TV show and showing how easy it is to manipulate scenes to be what you want it to be by splicing together different shots or even just changing the voice-over? ADK^{...I'll sink your cardboard box!} 12:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm never sure of the ethics of this but...

The BoN addition re decline in religion made a few moments ago

• Is over five months old
• Belongs in WIGO:World, not her
• Was covered by us back then

Comment out or merely vote down? Jack Hughes (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment out. Тy^talk 02:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hitchens column

The Hitch says: "Underlying these and other attempts to change the subject there was, and still is, a perverse desire to say that the 9/11 atrocities were in some way deserved, or made historically more explicable, by the many crimes of past American foreign policy." Really? The CIA would be surprised to hear that. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ramsay Dwarf Porn Doppleganger Dead

Ok, which git found that nugget? I just cried laughing at the keyboard. Then my wife read it and she did the same thing - and she's ill! Darkmind1970 (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I credit a few people on Facebook sending it around. ADK^{...I'll liberate your steak dinner!} 19:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Congressional hostage crisis

RE: http://www.theonion.com/articles/congress-takes-group-of-schoolchildren-hostage,26207/

You know those times when Chinese or Korean media suffer a little bit of "lost in translation" and mistake The Onion as a genuine news source? How totally fucking awesome would it be if this was the story they thought was real? ADK^{...I'll stink your bazooka!} 17:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait, they actually did believe it? Shitting-Christ. ADK^{...I'll yank your Andrew Schlafly!} 12:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

To be fair the incident did start with a tweet that said something like gunshots heard in the capitol. I imagine that if you're a capitol police officer you have to investigate that. Jsonitsac (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Still from The Onion, though. But I can see how Twitter would get taken too seriously. ADK^{...I'll shake your mop!} 21:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It is your duty to risk your brain and argue with your crazy uncle about climate change.

Tried it, didn't work. Do I get my cookie? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Never did it in person with a crazy uncle. But I did do it over facebook and was accused of making a "violent response". ADK^{...I'll deconstruct your filibuster!} 23:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, I did convert my dad from the "meh" position to "holy fuck the denialists are raving lunatics!" position. Christopher Monckton is quite useful. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

My uncle collects assault weapons and lives in a bunker were he grows his own food and makes his own ammo. And yes, he is a denialist. No, I am not going to get into an argument with him at any point in time.Ty^talk 04:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Haught vs Coyne video

I am so glad this was released. It is extremely well worth watching. The whole hour - you need to see Haught's sophisticated theology to really appreciate Coyne's comprehensive demolition. The version with the Q&A isn't up yet, but apparently will be soon - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Show on OWS

Did that bit remind anyone else of Animal Farm? Lower-class revolt, new society, growth, rift between new classes, and eventually the same old oppressive structure exists as before. It was like they were acting out the book. I was amazed. Wehpudicabok (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wehpudicabok, there is much opposition to your claim all over the internet. I suggest that you go HERE and HERE. Lagrandbite (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, where and where? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understood it the people that lived down didn't go up nor really participate in the desicionmaking, so yeah… People that don't vote, shouldn't complain about not being asked.

And yeah, that guy that didn't want to share his iPad because it's "his property" leaked, drank and sweat hypocricy. --★uːʤɱ kant 23:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Is income inequality the new climate change?

No, it's simply part of the larger war on reality. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"Inverse" theodidy

RE:http://atheists.org/blog/2011/11/16/debating-religion-the-evidential-problem-of-good-and-its-implications

Here's one for the philo geeks; can you actually get away with this? Can "good" and "evil" be exchanged like that? Call it "symmetry" or something like that. Now, I'm told by someone elsewhere that they can't and that they're therefore asymmetrical. But they've a) provided no justification as to why this is the case and b) given no indication as to why "good" would go one way in this asymmetry and "evil" would go the other. I'm willing to admit you could have a model of morality that suggests "evil is the lack of good", like dark is the absence of light. And therefore you can't swap them around, take the instance where someone tried flogging a cooling device that required you to put ice cubs into a parabolic reflector to focus "cold" at a source. I don't preclude that, perhaps, morals could be like this. BUT, Craig and Law here are working in a moral system where this isn't the case. Apologetics and religious morality always splits its morality into "evil acts" and "good acts", indicating symmetry (even if specific examples are asymmetrical, the opposite of "murder" isn't "not murder"). If it didn't then I don't think the concept of the Good God would actually work, and if it did we'd have no reason not to continue with the inversion and talk about an Evil God - after all, "evil" acts are usually doing something while the "good" acts are not doing something if you run by religious morality such as the Commandments. So merely changing the definition of good and evil here is... well, it doesn't really prove anything does it? ^gnostic 16:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the definitions actually matter for Law's argument. Whatever definition of "evil" you use, it's possible to imagine an all-powerful being whose goal is to create as much evil as possible. If Craig declares the "evil god" idea ridiculous (by a given definition of evil), then the same arguments apply to his good god.

Now, if Craig said that, for a certain definition of evil (which he then provided), the idea of an evil god is not obviously false (even if it can be shown to be false through some feat of theology), then an analogous definition of good may yet hold. But Craig provided no such definition.

Hmm... maybe you're right, the definition does matter... I don't know. I can sort of see both sides here. Also I'm really tired so I'm just gonna stop talking now. Wehpudicabok (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, even if the definitions did matter, then it would still be an arbitrary choice whether the All Good God was meaningful or the All Evil God was meaningful. So they're still interchangeable to make Law's point perfectly valid in flagging up the absurdity. ^pathetic 15:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Creation Ministries of the Ozarks

Quite funny - I wanted to see the Creation Ministries of the Ozarks' website, but (possibly) thanks to PZ, I get a "509 Bandwidth Limit Exceeded" error. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 14:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Almost certainly PZ plugging it. Someone should really tell him that with great power... ...comes great hilarity. ^narchist 15:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ariane Sherine article

Living in the melting pot of 'Murrica, "where are you from" gets asked to white people as well. Though you still get the ethnic stereotypes of course. Being mostly of German descent, I had a lot of fun with that back in my school days as Nazi comments would inevitably get slung around and I would say "No, you douchebag, I'm Jewish, my family came here to escape from the Nazis." That shuts up idiots pretty fast. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Being somewhat blonder than the avrage chap, everyone I meet (and I mean everyone) asks if i'm swedish, german or norwegian. They are always diappointed when I say I am from essex. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I lack interesting genealogical history. Though people spot my "origin" with the accent quite readily, so it's never asked at all. ^narchist 18:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I lied. They fled to Brazil to escape the Nazis, then came to the US to escape the US-backed coup. But that takes a bit longer to explain. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

activistpost.com

Umm, what is activistpost.com doing in the November 2011 part of the blogosphere section of Rationalwiki? The site has an alternative health section and is littered with conspiracies--including ones regarding the New World Order, HAARP, genetic modification, raw milk, FEMA concentration camps, the evils of godlessness and social democracy, and similar poppycock. Furthermore, the author of the article being linked seems to--in my opinion--forget that the mere presence of police brutality does not indicate the presence of a police state "that rivals the most authoritarian dictatorships in the world." 74.74.250.55 (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

What have i done?

I somehow reverted someones edit! A little help? Slam (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I fixed it for you. You can always click on the diff you made when you reverted it and click "undo." Sam ^Tally-ho! 21:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that the Melanie’s Marvellous Measles one? I read that as Stephenie Meyer and got hit by a ton of what-the-fuck for a good few minutes. ^narchist 22:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion with Terry Hurlbut

This struck me as a chance to involve myself in a sensible discussion on creationism. The end result was not as I expected. I didn't really expect Terry Hurlbut to deliberately excise all reasoning from my posts, after I had told him I was posting a full copy elsewhere. It's a bit pointless to continue when it become obvious the other chap is deliberately avoiding reasoning, dodging any factual evidence, and (weirdly) denying the possibility of inference from indirect observation.

User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Discussion_with_Terry_Hurlbut --Tony Sidaway (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Geek girls and Google

According to that Google thing, I'm a 65+ male. I guess you must be an old geezer if you use Google to buy boner pills do scientific research. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, this really just shows that targeting demographics doesn't really work. But you have to remember, see us clued-up, left-leaning bloggers and wiki-editors and self-confessed geeks? We're not actually a majority, we're very much the minority and outliers. And out of those, women are also a minority. That's just a simple statistical fact. If I wanted to play a guessing game, I'd go with guessing the majority. I'd wager that Google gets it right 90% of the time, but no one really talks about that because it would be uninteresting. Something also just doesn't sit right with criticising Google over it, people are acting as if some sleezey guys in suits sat in a board room and decided what was male and what was female (how very dare they!), when really it'll be some bored coders in their 20-percent-time getting a computer program to do things as automagically as possible. Can you really accuse an algorithm of being sexist? ^{d hominem} 01:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It also thinks my operating system of choice is linux, probably because I've been searching out errors and problems constantly for the last two months. Although why something I have to do so much troubleshooting with would be my OS of choice I don't know. It's picked up a classical music preference, at least. ^moral 01:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you can accuse an algorithm of being sexist, because the people implementing them, and the people deciding what variables means what, are human. Algorithms don't appear from outer space with no bias to them. Dendlai (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Got me 100% right, actually. Blue (is useful) 03:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

They use probabilistic algorithms for such things, which learn on the job. This is not the 1980s. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Evenso, assigning gender to people based on perceived internet habits is completely unnecessary. You can target ads just fine without explicitly saying "you're male because you like LotR and science". This is not the 1880s where women were either in the kitchen, knitting something pretty, or giving birth... Dendlai (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Take two. These algorithms are probabilistic. They reflect actual data, not anybody's prejudices. They perhaps got the idea that if they allowed people to view and correct their guesses of gender and age, they could improve the algorithms. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there really that much of a growing divide between atheism and agnosticism?

My goodness, I thought we were all on the same side. Osaka Sun (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you have to remember that "non-religious" is only a group defined based on what they don't believe, not what they do believe. So that "same side" isn't really a side, as such. There's a certain contingent that views atheism as a faith position because "oh but you can never really know", so you do get what are effectively militant agnostics, as it were. ^pathetic 14:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm definitely not in that contingent. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Me neither. Well, like many I may have been at one point. I'm probably quite harsh on nagnostics (I shall be using the word from now on) as I view it as some kind of faux open-mindedness. You can't just say "oh, it's beyond the material world so we can never know" as that's worse than professing faith; you're professing open minded consideration of something that you've defined to be beyond you to figure out and therefore completely inconsequential and irrelevant, effectively defining God as non-existent and then turning around for no reason and all and saying "but maybe". That's just self-contradicting. I mean, how the hell can you reconcile criticising people who expressly state non-belief as taking a faith position and then say something with such absolute certainty as "we'll never know if God exists or not". ^sshole 15:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Many agnostics don't even use the word consistently, conflating the positions of "it is impossible to know" with "we don't know" or "I give the god thing a coin-flip." I think the question "do you believe in god" is meaningless, so I guess that would make me something of an ignostic. So there you go, if you want to be a philosophical/pedantic asshole, go around telling agnostics that they are "really" ignostics. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I had a really, really massive essay on this that was pretty much comprehensive of why I dislike "agnostic" as a word... and then the tab closed and I lost all of it. Even clicking preview so at least it was in text rather than the editor, it just disappeared bringing it back... FUCK FUCK FUCK. The preview may have cached it to temporary internet files, though... ^sshole 18:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No joy recovering it, ah well. It was basically "agnosticism is a redundant label, and strong agnosticism is as self defeating as any other religion", so no biggie. ^sshole 18:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That was more or less my argument concerning "mysterian" thought, which is "strong agnosticism" applied to questions other than god. It purports to be advancing no knowledge claims, but it actually is by saying we can't, in principle ever have knowledge of x, y, or z. I can't find the quote, but I recall Lewontin saying something that is now obviously rather nutty along the lines of "We can't figure out consciousness, it simply can't be done!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That would probably be better than strong agnosticism, because at least you're applying the idea evenly. With just strong agnosticism it's singling out God just for the sake of it being God. ^pathetic 19:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Confused Level +1. My current position is that there's no such thing as a personal deity, but there could be something out there in the universe (ie. Spinoza's God or Futurama's God entity). How the Big Bang just popped out like it did still blows my mind. Right now, we don't know, and science will figure it out eventually, so fuck it and focus on what we do know.

Where does that exactly put me in? Some weird mix of deist/agnostic/weak atheist? Osaka Sun (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Simply put, you believe what you believe. Don't go looking for a nice clean label to put yourself under because that's where the trouble starts. You have to remember what Spinoza's God actually is rather than get confused over the fact that it's call "god", for instance: it's the universe, it's nature itself. If you want to say that you don't know what caused that, then fine. That's healthy because it's admitting the limits of your knowledge, don't go around trying to claim a particular philosophical label for it that isn't your own because that's what stops people believing what they're personally convinced by and causes them to start believing what they think they should believe instead. So to answer that question directly: it puts you nowhere. You are what you are, you believe what you believe, the universe is what it is. ^theist 00:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I just had a bit of a "God Particle" brain-fart with Spinoza. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

How 'bout those ultrasounds now?

I have no confidence in my own ability to create a WIGO, but this would make a great one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/mandatory-ultrasound-bill-virginia-anti-abortion_n_1242627.html

GayGator (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

NOt just ultra sounds, but vaginal ultrasounds. You open the woman up, push this frankly, dildo sized probe up her, and look at the baby. YOu are also REQUIRED to talk about what you see, and describe specifically what you will do, and how it will effect the baby. Sadly, there has only been one study on the effectiveness in changing women's minds. and that study said of around 200 women who saw their babies, NOT ONE changed their mind, but all of them had more traumatic emotions than "we normally see in our patients". yeah. joy. GodotGrow a vagina 19:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Who feels like chatting to Conservative kids and at least one Mamma?

They’ve asked me to debate and invited me to bring my friends.

If you'd still like to debate, there's a button to enter the chat on your profile page--right side. You may wanna bring some friends as I'm recruiting some fellas. [1]

I’ve linked my userpage to articles that I hope will show them there is a case for the Liberal agenda.

1. Any Americans feel like debating about the USA?
2. Any outside America feel like debating why the rest of the world hasn’t got it all wrong?
3. Here’s the Main page, Welcome to the Conservative Wiki

Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I would love to but I'm sure my swearing and ad hominems would be counterproductive. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the debate is, I don't think phrases like "the Liberal agenda" are going to win you any points. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

They already know I'm a liberal because they first contacted me at Liberapedia. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So if you don't want men who wish they were women to use women's restrooms, you're racist.

Got it. --NoPetrol (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What? ^sshole 19:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've baffled, at least, two people on this Wiki. The Punk Symphony of Noise ^{Your mental puke relief} 19:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd read the article to try to understand, but for some reason my work filter is blocking that particular site. Dunno why. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not even "wish" they were women. it's "see themselves as women". GodotGrow a vagina 19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not racist, no, but as bigoted and stupid as a racist. Which you've shown here you are. Blue (is useful) 19:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Life is much nicer and way easier when your body and mind conform to an arbitrary classification system. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 20:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

On second reading: can't tell if veiled pseudo-feminist passive-aggression or genuine statement of support. Blue (is useful) 03:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The latter, dear. definitely the latter. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 03:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. One of the most common internet feminism memes is the accusation that since most transsexual people emulate gender differences ("arbitrary classification system"), they're actually woefully misguided patriarchy-supporters. Feminists, of course, have an awkward history with male-assigned-at-birth transsexuals (and many radical feminists have less-than-savory things to say to female-assigned-at-birth transsexuals, though you don't here as much about that). Blue (pester) 04:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how is whether or not one has a penis and a y chromosome "arbitrary"? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Since we started studying genetics and sexual identity and have found that few people conform to such easy standards. There are XXY, and XYY, and and and... there are people who's head is female, but who's external genitlies are male. There are people who have internal male genitalia, but external female genitalia. There are people who have both at the same time, external or internally. etc. and etc. It's not a simple, easy definition of "two sexes". turns out, there are quite literally a "range" of sexes. GodotGrow a vagina 20:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean to say that there are few who don't conform to such easy standards. Sure, there are XXY, XYY, hermaphrodites, etc. but they're certainly a minority. (I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "head of a female" either.) Sure, it's not a simple issue, but I hardly think arbitrary is the right word. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What, should we have DNA tests for bathroom entry? Genitalia inspections? That's an awful lot of effort for oppressing such a relatively small group. Blue (pester) 20:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, life would just be so much easier for everyoen if women would just stay home and have babies, let the men do the work. Then there would be only one bathroom in the first place.

In all seriousness, most new big buildings are creating one or two "private room" bathrooms, that are handicapped accessible, have dipaer changing rooms, etc. You go in with yourself or your kids and lock the door. It does not matter what "what" you are. It works out quite well, and avoids all these issues, provides private space if you are "shy" on the potty, etc. GodotGrow a vagina 20:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the states where they're modifying the building codes of abortion clinics will get right on this adoption of private/family bathrooms. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, they're adopting that planning scheme in new schools to prevent bullying. Interesting design principles, actually. ^sshole 21:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No doubt they're also better than the hellholes that are men's bathrooms. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In every dorm I lived in so far, the toilets and showers are unisex. I've never heard anybody complain about it. I don't understand why there should be any problem about this. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Girls have cooties, silly goose! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

UHM, I would venture that those would be the exception, not the rule...though, I do recall "back in my day" when I would walk into the men's room and see a bunch of girls standing there at the sink/mirror. I'm reminded of Ally McBeal. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The bathrooms in my college dorms were multisex as well ("unisex" just seems like the opposite of what it means, doesn't it?), with the possible exception of the few halls that were reserved for one sex or the other. Worked fine, though everyone might not be comfortable with it (I did go to a very liberal college). Individual rooms are great, and I never understood why many establishments with single person restrooms bother designating them one sex or the other. The disadvantage of them is that they're more expensive per person they can accomodate. Also, I'd imagine places like high schools would have issues with them, as they're presumably have locks, which could create problems with students getting into trouble there. Drugs, sex, sexual assault, all sorts of things could go on in such a place where they can sequester themselves from the rest of the school. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

uni- as in universal, not unicycle. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 22:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah. That makes more sense. Still doesn't sound right, though. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ They might listen to rock and roll as well. Or read controversial books. Good thing college students are adults, and so we don't have to worry about watching them since they're free to make their own mistakes. Update--sorry, I missed the transition from college to high school situations in your post....P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 22:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying that we should make all toilets uni/multi/omnisex now. I'm just saying that I don't see why we need such a thing a seperation of sexes there. Although, in schools that seperation certainly makes sense (first because boys in puberty are unpredictable, second because well, "getting busy" in one of those thing would be way too easy). Well, maybe this is just my generation not really caring about such things (I should say that I know way to much about some of my neighbours sex lifes now, and I don't mean tmi-style I mean "We both know I heard last night how you had some really freaky sex and now we are standing in the elevator together but we don't even know each other's last name"-style awkward) and possibly this might go away in a few decades. Anyway, if I don't see a problem with that, I can't really care if the person next door that looks like woman also has a vagina like you'd expect it… --★uːʤɱ soviet 22:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Gay agenda

They didn't print it on rainbow paper? Outrage! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it wrong that I kind of want that? ^theist 13:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Youtube parenting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl1ujzRidmU

Go to the end to see the laptop getting shot --145.94.77.43 (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Who wants to see George Takei...?

...vs. Michelle Malkin on Faux? Fight! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ooooh, contro-mc-versial. ^moral 08:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We all know who would win that. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Japanese-American interment, 1942-1945.

Michelle Malkin, born 1970.

George Takei, born 1937.

One of these people isn't even qualified to speak on the subject. ^moral 09:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Brian Cox

Whats with all this gushing over this Cox? He's not bad looking, but hardly a stunner. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's more of a recurring in-joke, to be honest. ^postate 19:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In-joke, you say? In-joke??? how dare you. ;-)GodotGrow a vagina 19:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, this line is great "The problem is that it sounds like woo woo, and quantum theory attracts woo-woo merde-merchants like the pronouncements of New Age mystics attract flies – metaphorically speaking."GodotGrow a vagina 19:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Mormons

I don't get the Holocaust exclusion. Can anyone explain it? Toffeeman (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I can only assume it has something to do the mormons having made thousands of holocaust victims mormon. Mormons don't do such things now apparently so they wouldn't wouldn't be dead mormons to be made gay. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking on the site there is link to wikipedia explaining the exclusion. I think this site is in somewhat poor taste. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Mormons do in fact do such things, they just now claim they are providing the soul of the dead person with the opportunity to convert. This would be the poor taste thing - David Gerard (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Some mormons do but it is largely frowned upon. And I dislike homosexuality being used as a stick to beat people with. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That would presumably be from their strong support for Proposition 8 - David Gerard (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Cracked article...

...lead me to this opinion piece about Ebenezer Scrooge. Thought it was a good read. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say that the Cracked article seemed to be misunderstanding the mechanism of action of the placebo effect. I.e, it's not simply "mind over matter". We know that these thing work, to a point, and the theoretical mechanisms are fascinating, but "magic" is the part that everyone has a problem with. With acupuncture, for example, you can jam needles into the "wrong" place and cause the same effect - so much for chi lines - and you can even completely fake the depth the needles penetrate while causing an indistinguishable sensation. That's not to say that the body won't respond to the sensation by releasing chemicals that might help with certain ailments, particularly chronic pain, but that's a far cry from "acupuncture works" in any formulation. ^sshole 10:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Rush finds a sponsor he can relate to?

I think you missed the memo. Limbaugh already rejected the WBC's ad. It even made its way into WIGO World almost a week ago. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Clam Chowder! -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

House of Lords

Get this reactionary shit into the clogs. For fuck's sake Scherben 23:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough and well-reasoned rebuttal. ^sshole 19:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome; though I take it reactionary privilege is beloved of the 'rational' everywhere? Scherben 04:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!-- Seth Peck (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann is a socialist

Lenin and Bakunin were also fans of Thessalonians 3:10. I smell a Red! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Woo-hoo!!

I have invoked the wrath of Farah. This is a good thing. --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm impressed. Congratulations--"Shut up, Brx." 16:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice! Apokalyps2547 (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"After all, look at the bright side – you’re looking at another 4 whole years to rail against the Black Man in the White House." Hehehehe.... ^moral 18:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

" internet users who manage to be so gullible that they will believe any myth, story or hoax they hear AND be complete skeptics regarding actual verified historical events. "

Blogpost fail. The author is confusing ignorance about historical fact (not knowing that the Titanic was actually a thing) with the choice not to believe in something in the face of incontrovertible evidence (believing in a young earth, etc.). I didn't see anybody tweeting that the Titanic didn't really sink, only that the existence of that fact came as a surprise to them. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 13:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the line there is pretty blurred, though. For the vast majority of, for example, creationsts, the ones with their boots on the ground ticking the box marked "6000 years" when asked in surveys, their error is equally ignorance, they have no intention or need or desire to go and gain information. Similarly, with the ones that perpetuate myths and hoaxes via Twitter and Facebook simply don't know any better. They're both ignorant of fact, and that's okay. The difference is whether this turns to wilful ignorance in the light of information presented. For that, it depends on how central certain beliefs are to a person's identity. Being unaware of the Titanic being an actual ship is probably less a core value of someone's identity than something like "9/11 was an inside job". But it's a lose-lose situation in any case, as you can sound really dumb with a "I didn't know that" tweet, or really really dumb with a "no, we didn't go to the moon and you can't convince me otherwise" tweet. ^theist 10:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Willpower and glucose

The glucose model of self-control has been seriously challenged. See here. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

^My new random catchphrase of the day Тy^rannosaurs 19:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Either way, I'm going for a fucking coffee. ^narchist 10:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

xkcd

While the Ayn Rand one is funny enough, it's really this one that is really like being smacked on the face with a baseball bat. But it does give the xkcdsucks clog a chance to prove that it's ran by heartless assholes. ^sshole 09:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of xkcd, when will this page be renamed "What is going on in the tumblverse?" Occasionaluse (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

When my corpse is being used for science. ^moral 15:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to steal that line.

Also, call me a heartless asshole, if you will, but I think that cancer strip goes way too far into Tom Batiuk territory to be effective. Vulpius (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, if I start saying "over my reused organs", it might force me to get around to filling out those damn forms. ^gnostic 17:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we have more specific WIGOs than

"Thanks, Captain fucking Obvious." I mean can they at least hint at the content of the link? sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 14:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I try. But seriously, as mentioned in the CAPSLOCK comments on WIGO:World, the more specific and less cryptic ones also help prevent repeats. Sometimes it can be hard not to snark, but there is a compromise between getting across information and making a snarkastic point. ^bomination 17:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Red Dawn 2012

To the person who wondered why North Korea, there's already a precedent in the game Homefront. The deal is they want a modern setting with REDSREDSREDSREDSREDSREDS!!!!!!, but they still want to be able to legally sell it in China. The game was widely regarded as terrible, by the way, and I'm in no way defending the decision or the works, but explaining that it's basically a marketing thing. --CoyoteSans (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Twitter map

Looking at the levels of Mail v Guardian clicks, I notice that us wildlings from north of The Wall seem remarkably liberal. ^moral 00:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Difficulty setting

RE: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/

Actually, a fascinating an apt analogy in many ways. Though I'm sure someone, somewhere, in that oversized comments section will have said this already, we can extend it further. Notice that on the net people like to bitch about people playing on easy, and look down on anyone who plays on anything less than the hardcore uber-mode that was installed just for the PC port. That's kinda what it feels like reading the average blog/rant over privilege. I never got the choice about what skin colour I was born with, and yet post after post and essay after essay is written disparaging me for it. Because that's what it feels like; blame. I'm to blame for the world's ills, personally - and it's all because of something I didn't chose, a selection that was made without my knowledge or input.

But of course, it makes total sense, doesn't it? You can tell exactly how easy my life is, how many legs up I've been given, how many points I started with, entirely from the colour of my skin and not by, you know, actually looking at my life in more detail. ^narchist 11:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Scalzi's essay addresses this, you poor oppressed dear. The point is not to be a dick about it. Can you manage that? Sure you can. - David Gerard (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Where am I ranting about me being oppressed? And where am I being a dick about it? And where does Scalzi actually address how it's okay to be judgemental about people for things they didn't choose? ^narchist 00:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? It's not about being judgmental in any way. Omar (gibber) 13:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Those German Cops

There's doubt that they're actually doing what the caption says they are. See the comments.Scherben 22:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There's also doubt that Barack Obama was born in the United States. If they were there to enforce anything (as opposed to keeping the peace or joining the protest) then how come they took off their helmets? -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that some people are claiming it's a German police tactic, which has nothing to with the 'Birthers', so what the fuck are you using that logical fallacy for? There's no source for the pic, and there's no real evidence from it that they're leading a protest march other than the unsolicited caption.

So let's not speculate. The captions here do suggest that they are escorting, rather than participating, in the march, and one of them actually does show them wearing helmets. The march itself was peaceful, probably due to the police presence scaring off any agent provocateurs. Compare these photos to the photos taken a few days earlier for the same movement. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, and sorry for the bad language. I was out of order Scherben 00:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Prometheus WIGO

a) the film was great b) that WIGO was from r/atheism; why am I not surprised? Blue (pester) 19:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

But if I wanted to go to reddit I'd go to reddit! Seriosuly, what is up with all the image link wigos recently? Тyrannis^Plead 20:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/174.118.208.93. They have been warned, but I'm not sure if there was any effect: User talk:174.118.208.93. Same person spends their time bluelinking every second word in random articles. Feel free to write them up in RWW. :)--ZooGuard (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Telegraph blogger calls stereotypical commenter out (finally)

I found the exchange in the comments on this piece between a predictable Telegraph commenter and the author of the blog piece pretty funny, especially as it's the first time I've actually seen a blogger on that site get fed up enough to call someone out: "How do you get from split infinitives to borderline-racist rants about democracy and banking? You have an extremely strange way of looking at the world." (To see it rank the comments by best rating, as of now it's the exchange under the second-best-rated comment.) --Lord Shang (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Frank Fisher, you are welcome to prioritise your nation [etc.]. But surely you are capable of other conversations as well? You know, from time to time? Or do you, when asked whether you would like a period or a day return ticket, respond that "Out there in the real world, people are not worrying about whether or not I return from Lowestoft today or next Thursday, but whether Britain shall return from its transport of PC madness and the Brussels dictatorship"?

I bow in awe, sir. Seriously, though, this is what these people seem to be like. They can shoehorn anything into their own bizarre world where the PC Police are stopping them being racist, Bonkers Britain is Going to The Dogs and where Daily Fail stands up for Truth (and not, as everyone else sees it, as standing up for whatever shoes the Cardassians are wearing that day). How they do it I don't know, is it something to do with the communication medium of blog comments? Or can they do this in actual face-to-face conversation, too? ^gnostic 11:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Donald Trump a hoax?

I just read the article that on the blogosphere that claims Donald Trump as we know him is in reality a clever hoax pulled off by an eccentric billionaire. And I ask: What the nonexistent hell is this article doing on this page? It has no sources, other than one almost irrelevant one at the top, and gives no evidence other than pure speculation. I accept that this is most likely a satire, and that I was probably fooled by Poe's Law, but this is the Internet, meaning a lot of idiots read from this sight, including out conservative competition, and they won't take us seriously if we put this kind of stuff in our WIGOs without a clear indicator of satire.

So, what should be done about this --Bdor24 (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Obvious parody/satire article is obvious? ^theist 11:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I took Bdor24's comment as a hilarious meta-Poe - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

My Poedar is tuned up nicely, but I need to work on my meta-Poedar. ^{d hominem} 15:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Everyone read my comment again. See the sentence "I accept that this is most likely a satire"? It's not the content that worries me, it's the fact that Poe's Law exists and people are fooled by it all the time. Without some clear indicator of satire, readers that don't take Poe's Law into account when reading articles will believe that WE believe it is real, and then they will curse us as gullible fools and go find somewhere else to get their information, somewhere that may have misinformation. THAT'S what I'm worried about; gullible idiots, not the satire itself. --Bdor24 (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Haha! Whatever you do, just don't break character! - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sinfest

Today's cartoon is spot-on, but its recent take on feminism is a bit too second-wavey for me. It's still a great progress from the "ninja pimp/asian 'ho" days, though. (Don't make me dig up links to those.)--ZooGuard (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"its" above meant "Sinfest's", not "today's cartoon", if it's not clear.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Second-wave erotica is moral, but pretty boring. ^moral 15:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there actually any?--ZooGuard (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

To the Googlemobile! ^sshole 15:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Bible Explosm

That's rather crude Marcionism, don't you think? Scherben 17:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

fake article being used as true

": This just in at Mitt HQ: Plight of the unemployed continues around the country. HI-FIVE!"

this is from the onionNailo1 (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's tagged as such. "البصل" means "onions" in Arabic. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Fooled me. Vulpius (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah we can all read arabic here at RW. Sophie^{because liberals} 19:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

TX GOP Party Platform: They're the stupid ones?

I beg to differ on that WIGO, even though I upvoted. This may be arguing semantics, but the Texas GOP is proving themselves to be the "smart" ones in this situation. They are convincing the rest of the populace to grant them a platform from which they (the GOP) can make them (the fine citizens of Texas) dumber. With their (again, the constituents) express support and permission. That's BRILLIANT (from a diabolically evil standpoint, that is). The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I just read an interesting article on that Texas GOP platform, from those stinking pinko Marxists at... Forbes magazine. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Caiden Cowger

Does anybody else think he looks like James O'Keefe? Must be a narrow gene pool for conservative youths.--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is a well-known fact that birthrate of white children is declining in comparison to other races, so...do the math...-- Seth Peck (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

LessWrong on PZ

The comments are golden.
Step 1 is to construct a superintelligent machine... Lol, duh! All we have to do to do whatever the fuck we want is to make a super awesome computer AI ...that we don't know how to make yet and have no reason to believe it's even possible to make.
And a classic of theirs
It looks as he is just another smart guy who is no wiser outside the laboratory. Without any argument to back himself up. And finally,
P. Z. isn't an expert on intelligent machines. Yeah, he's not. But then again, neither are you and neither is anyone, since intelligent machines don't exist.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The plan is to just slice a brain up really really thin and scan it? Brilliant!! Why didn't I think of that? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

And you call yourself a neuroscience grad student! For shame, sir, for shame.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Over at LW they are seriously arguing for it.--Baloney Detection (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No I don't. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You have a scanner that can efficiently single out and characterize a gazillion different interacting floppy molecules all in one femtosecond whack? Color me deeply impressed. How come you didn't think of using it for that? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, how do you cut the slices without causing any damage whatsoever to the tissues? That's a neat trick. --Kels (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

When my research enables cellular-level resolution with MRI, you can all kiss my shiny metal uploaded ass. ^{d hominem} 18:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

When Eliezer's research enables friendly AI... lol. In more seriousness though, one could imagine a narrow AI that would search for a chemical way of preserving the data, or design a scanning machine. Dmytry (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as creationists misunderestimate the vast scale of truly deep time, I suspect the "download my essence onto a blank chassis" types have not the faintest clue nor foggiest notion of the scale at either end of that process. By that I mean this:

• Your cellular-level resolution is not nearly fine-grained enough to capture "the distribution of highly specific, low copy number molecules in every dendritic spine, the state of molecules in flux along transport pathways, and the precise concentration of all ions in every single compartment."
• Until someone comes up with a data compression strategy optimized for this kind of massive neurological state capture (and quite probably not even then) the storage requirements will be impracticable. Probably expensive, too, on the scale of "more money than any planet could earn in millennia." (There was a Cordwainer Smith SF piece that dealt with that magnitude of debt.)

I could be wrong about that last bit, since my experience with gigantic amounts of memory is limited to the hard discs in my son's junk collection and the thumb drives available for impulse purchase at my local Staples store. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Storage is a tricky one. If you're talking atom-by-atom then you'd consume more atoms storing the information than atoms you were storing. So quite literally the physical media would have to be considerably larger than the brain itself. At minimum. If you think you can get away with storing less, say, just a few bits of data to simulate a single cell, then it might be more feasible but you'd lose so much dynamical information it would be questionable how accurate the Magic Scan actually was. ^pathetic 00:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the real kicker here is that even if you get all of this to work, you still have to deal with the swamp man problem. But as we all know, philosophy is for pussies -- all problems can be solved by smacking them hard enough with your techno-science-peen. Ah, let the boys play with their imaginary toys, it has some decent entertainment value at least. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, while it's not about LW, it always reminds me of this: "Listening to her impatience at other ideologies reminds me of a five year-old considering the world’s problems. Can’t get the Chilean miners out? “Why not just build a robot?” she’d say, handing over a sketch; herself pictured overseeing the operation from a unicorn." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

[ec] Depends on what you mean by "a few" bits. Potentiation and inhibition may be better characterised as analogue processes, hence the need for some cognizant data compression narrowly fit for purpose; how many (mythical) man-months to design and code that? Then, just giving all the neurons (and all the places each one significantly touches another one) unique ID tags would use up more than a double handful per each. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Swamp Man problem has never really bugged me because all it does is try to attach conciousness to explicit physical media. Which is silly when you realise the turnover rate of atoms in your own body is a few years. You're already your own Swamp Man compared to when you were just born - yet your conciousness and memories have been preserved perfectly anyway yet you, as that fleshy bit of transport there, never experienced many of those things. If it's a problem for singularitarians and uploading fantasies, it's a problem for us all as we grow old. ^ssclown 09:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Besides, philosophy certain does disappear if you hit it hard enough ^pathetic 09:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't, whatever you might have been told. While a lot of philosophy, especially the Continental variety, is up its ass and ignores scientific findings, as Dennett pointed out there is no philosophy-free science, only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.--Baloney Detection (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a well-known philosophical problem which can't simply be shuffled under the rugg. Shermer brought it up when he was on Singularity 1 On 1 (search on Youtube if you are interested). If I make a copy of me while I'm still alive, then that is not me, it's another person. Just like twins aren't the same persons.--Baloney Detection (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Well-known" philosophical problem doesn't mean "interesting" philosophical problem. The Chinese Room is "well-known" but that doesn't stop it being question-begging dualist nonsense analogous to asking if carbon atoms in your own brain understand English when you read it. If you tried analysing the Swampman thought experiment in E Prime, for a moment, you'll simply find that you're associating the concept of self with physical media, rather than the media-independent patterns they produce (and the fact that there would come into existence two separate entities experiencing different paths isn't really the point). This makes what it's saying remarkably trivial. ^{d hominem} 12:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I found PZ Myers' blogpost this morning. Made my day.--Baloney Detection (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Bikers Against Child Abuse

Fuck yeah. Leaving aside the fact that some biker gangs are involved in organized crime, bikers are some of the nicest people I know. And even the ones involved in shady stuff can have a strong sense of community, protecting those that the system fails to protect. Kind of like the yakuza, only without the chopping off of knuckles for screwing up. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 11:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's one of the most amazing articles I've read. Yet, I made the mistake of reading the bottom half of the internet. ^{d hominem} 12:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Link from the Raw Story article about Arpaio

I didn't even know this was a thing. Is it deserving of an article here, given the resurgence of the immigration debate? -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Google Doodle

Here in the UK - and, as far as I can tell, in Germany - we're getting the hurdles as the Google doodle. Bad Faith (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It was yesterday's Google Doodle. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Today's is basketball. VOX^HUMANA 17:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The change was very subtle: from a blimp to a tiny rover landing in the corner. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 17:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dafuq?

RE: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/05/us-oly-women-bodies-day-idUSBRE8740KI20120805

Who the fuck said Jessica Ennis is fat? I need to slap their tubby arse with a cricket bat. ^postate 08:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

She's more ripped than most guys. I get the feeling that whoever said that doesn't actually think she's fat, but was just using it as an equivalent for "ugly." I've actually heard it ::used that way before. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It was an unnamed coach. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that but no reasonable person could possibly call her fat. Bad Faith (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

WTF? Now Gabby Douglas' hair isn't good enough? Is there usually this much sexism at the Olympics? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ennis? Ugly? Surely we're talking misunderstood sarcasm here, along the lines of "Christopher Hitchens was a puritanical sports-obsessed pinhead". Or perhaps a mis-translation of "Jess Ennis has a phat arse, innit".Toffeeman (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)