RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive16

This is an archive page, last updated 18 October 2013. 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>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>

, (new)(back)

Scientists believe they have discovered how cancer spreads through the body,

Is this a case of a narrow and specific finding reported in the scientific literature becoming broad and general in the popular press? (We should name that phenomenon and have an article on it. Something like knowledge creep or something.) Also, while the article (...and who the fuck reads the Calgary Herald, anyways?) says that " it will be relatively easy to develop drugs that interfere with this interaction," it concludes that: "there’s a very long way to go to see whether this knowledge can be translated into new treatments for cancer patients.” If I knew the way/I would take you home. 02:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd just call it exaggeration or blowing things out of proportion. And, I imagine that's at least partially a reference to the process of drug trials, starting from promising compound A that does XYZ good thing in the lab through animal testing, then initial human trials, more rounds of human trials for longer periods and larger testing cohorts, etc. until finally it's sold on the shelves or marketed to pharmacies to carry and doctors to prescribe. Assuming it isn't found to kill or cause brain damage or (if we ask the Daily Fail) cause other cancer, somewhere along the line, or any other number of deal-breaking side effects, that still takes a bloody long time. And, right now, the metastasis mechanism is a potential discovery, so predicting any sort of meaningful ETAs on practical applications being discovered and isolated/understood in order to begin assembling drug compounds is kind of pointless, because not only are those interference measures as of yet at least partially unknown, the entire theory is still unproven. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 12:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Tax man doesn't want your BitCoins

The tax man always wants dollars, that's a key part of why the dollar is valuable - everybody has to pay taxes. You can't pay taxes with Bitcoins, so they're only valuable if you can exchange them for something you want. And that makes them taxable, but again, in dollars. Thus, your WoW gold is only taxable if you convert it into dollars or other valuable stuff (which Blizzard says you mustn't). So long as all you do is play WoW the taxman couldn't give a shit. Your Pokémon playing cards and collection of bottle caps are likewise uninteresting to the IRS so long as they remain just that. When you auction them for $25 000 on eBay, or agree to swap them for a brand new family car, the taxman wants a cut, in dollars. Tialaramex (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Blinding flash of the obvious their my friend. --Revolverman (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Last telegram??

That article is just not true. Two months ago I sent a telegram to my fiancée (which is a very good flirt), and I'm not convinced that telegram are actually completely stopped. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2013/0614/India-to-send-world-s-last-telegram.-Stop?nav=87-frontpage-spotlight 62.159.14.62 (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to read past the headline, bozo: " The world's last telegram message will be sent somewhere in India on July 14." ^{— Unsigned, by: PowderSmokeAndLeather / talk / contribs}

You need to remember to sign your posts, bozo. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 07:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's all take a moment to remember...

...that this douchebag promised "DEFCON-6" from conservatives if DOMA/Prop 8 were overturned. And given that he appears to not understand how the DEFCON scale works, it looks like his statement is absolutely correct. --Seth Peck (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the DOMA Ruling

I'm hearing rumblings that, despite the Supreme Court decision today, Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act still stands: http://www.policymic.com/articles/51323/doma-section-2-states-still-don-t-have-to-recognize-existing-gay-marriages (Recap: Section 2 allows states that don't allow same-sex marriage to completely ignore them.) Haven't seen any other source address this issue, and I wasn't sure if it warranted inclusion or mention at all, so I thought I'd bring it up here for the moment. --OverworldTheme (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The laws of the states still stand, and the majority is not recognizing them as legal. However, for the federal government to not have a hand in it, it means that same-sex couples who are married in their state (where it is recognized) cannot be denied FMLA benefits (e.g., job protection for going on leave while your spouse is sick) as well as many other benefits. The case itself (U.S. vs. Windsor) was about estate taxes which would now need to be refunded to Windsor, a lesbian widow. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This actually makes perfect sense (though still unjust). Marriage is supposed to be left up to the States. Declaring marriage to be solely between a man and a woman is akin to declaring the age of consent to marry must be 18 nation-wide. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, section 2 is pretty run-of-the-mill for the federalist US.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you read the dissent by Scalia (I think that's the right one) it's clear that the language chosen for the existing majority decision is pretty much tailored for an argument to eventually get rid of Section 2 or indeed authorise gay marriage everywhere. The majority wrote that treating Windsor's marriage differently was "demeaning" and therefore unacceptable. That argument works perfectly well for a future Jane Doe and Mary Roe who can't marry due to living in the wrong state. The justices could have chosen an argument that couldn't be re-used this way, and that they didn't suggests that they expect to approve exactly such a judgement if it comes their way in a decade or so, with say a dozen states still not permitting gay marriage. But who knows what they were thinking, every one of the opinions in that judgement is crazy talk, from the majority decision's "If you squint hard enough you can see a controversy here that justifies this being in front of the Supreme Court" bogus rationale through to Scalia's "What bigotry? The Republican sponsors of DOMA were just trying to minimise paperwork for the Federal government". This might be the most stupidly argued Supreme Court decision I've ever read and I've read dozens, it's stupider than Plessy v Ferguson (the origin of separate but equal). I mean, yay, Windsor gets what she's entitled to, but it didn't even need to reach an appeals court for that, she won ages ago, the Supreme Court ruling is pure political theatre. Tialaramex (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Why constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage will never happen

Here's my American-splaining:

In order to amend the Constitution, the amendment must be voted and approved by a 2/3 majority of the U.S. House, a 2/3 majority of the U.S. Senate, and then ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

• There are currently 184 house reps who have voiced their support for gay marriage.
• There are currently 54 senators who have voiced their support for gay marriage.
• There are 13 states that have legalized gay marriage.

Nevermind that it would never get ratified by the states because 13 is more than a 1/4th minority to keep it from becoming the 28th Amendment, there only needs to be 34 senators and 146 representatives who would vote no on it to keep it from going to the states.

And that's just the politicians who would vote against it on pro-gay grounds, nevermind the Tenth Amendment/States' Rights/Anti-Big Gubmint crowd. --Seth Peck (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, here's the Problem.

• The GOP needs to look busy.
• There's a huge problem because the Executive branch has horrifying and near-limitless powers.
• The GOP won't actually try to remove those powers because they want a Republican President to have those powers in 2016.

So, Huelskamp decided to pick a fight that can't be won, but will "rally the troops".

--TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 19:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, that's for the near future ("never" is a big word). Demographics (and support for whatever party) changes over time. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Bush on PRISM

Articles like this one convinced me a while back that Bush really wasn't evil, but that he truly meant well, but was so shockingly ignorant he still never should have been President. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 13:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I always considered that Hanlon's Razor should be applied to GWB, which would cut differently when applied to, say, Dick Cheney. --Seth Peck (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I still suspect he was nothing more then the face to take the punishment while his "underlings" really ran the show. --Revolverman (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Internet Cafes

I've given up trying to figure out GOP policies, other than "It's to stop us screwing up again" or "Here's another way to screw the poor," but what the hell is the logic behind closing all internet cafes, because of online gambling? --PsyGremlin^Parla! 20:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Technically, the aim of the law is to shut down what are effectively casinos calling themselves "internet cafes" to exploit loopholes in existing gambling laws. The computers in them have software to act as play-with-money video poker, slots, etc., dodging laws that ban slot machines, etc., but not ordinary-computers-acting-as-slot-machines-etc. If you accept their reasoning on existing law, this is at least consistent with that intent. They're just going about it in a comically incompetent manner. Compro01 (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Asiana Flight 214 Fake Names Report

The WIGO entry links to the raw video without context, not noting that the station got the names directly from the NTSB. While it's noteworthy that the station aired them, I believe it warrants mention. --OverworldTheme (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

HBO and the VLC player

This description is dishonest, hyperbolic bullshit:

HBO demonstrates the psychopathy of the entertainment industry by trying to memory hole the open-source media player VLC off Google's search index.

As the linked article makes clear, HBO sends automated takedown requests that sometimes target legitimate content. In one case, this included a torrent of a VLC installer. This is by no means trying to "memory hole" VLC in general. I hope that all the people who upvoted the entry did actually read the article.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't bet on it. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you or would you not describe a corporation's actions as "psychopathic" if they considered it fully appropriate to take a legal copyright enforcement mechanism that is designed to be filled in or at least reviewed by hand by a live human, as a DMCA claim comes with a statement of perjury, and allow a bot to file (let's be charitable and call this a false positive instead of intentional malice) mass automated takedowns through it, effectively without review, knowing that the odds are vastly in their favour due to the legal warchest they can use to crush any uppity rabble? Okay, it's a false positive. It's a false positive and HBO just committed perjury it knows it will never be held accountable for because it simply isn't worth it to persecute them due to a dysfunctional copyright framework. While the blame is certainly shared with the legal framework the entertainment industry is operating in, someone let me know where we stopped talking about pathological behaviour. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 09:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

My issue is with describing what happened as "trying to memory hole VLC off Google's search index". That would be something like delisting videolan.org, not some torrent of the installer.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Reza Aslan Trolls Fox News

Somebody who can actually edit this page properly should put up a link to Reza Aslan doing a magnificent job trolling Lauren Green on a Fox News webcast last Friday. (His book on the historical Jesus has, of course, shot to #1 on Amazon with Fox's help.) ^{— Unsigned, by: [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] / [[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]}

I don't think Phelps cares.

Fred Phelps is a vicious prick, and his parents, to my understanding, were actually very disappointed with how he turned out. People making a spectacle of themselves near his mother's corpse won't actually faze him. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Fred's mother died of some variant of throat cancer (source: Addicted to Hate), and Shirley is seen in a Theroux doc (the second IIRC) declaring people get cancer because God decides it. Polite Timesplitter ^{Cultural loneliness is a right pain} 19:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect he's a psychopath, so, yes, he'll be incapable of caring. I don't know what the rest of the family's excuse is. Scherben (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

NYTimes "Milk vs. Meat" Article

If I'm not mistaken, this article was already recently featured under the blogs WIGO. --OverworldTheme (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right, hiding it. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That wannabe amputee.

Things like this fuck me off so much. I work for a company that works with real amputees, soldiers who have had their legs blown off in Afghanistan, bikers who've been clobbered by some cage, children who have had their legs removed because of meningitis or who were born congenitally malformed. We make the prosthetic limbs to help these people try to live as full a life as possible. And silly bastards like this woman look on it as a lifestyle choice. Fuck her, cut her spinal chord like she wants and then don't give her any further help at all - EVER. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

So her mental disorder is a lifestyle choice, is it? Sophie^Wilder 19:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Mental disorder or lifestyle choice, makes no difference to me, so long as no "mental disorder" is "treated" by actually indulging the wish to have her legs cut off. And again, I just don't want to have to add another stripe to the rainbow of body identity subcultures, or experience the resulting 'awareness campaign' of moral aggression. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

See, this is the knee-jerk reaction to what is, in itself, an extreme proposition. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

So treat the mental disorder' then, not indulge it. Just because a bipolar hears a vpice saying they are god and can kill people we don't think we should humour them, we instead treat them. Again, fuck her, cut her chord and leave her alone with no support other than that which she can fund herself. And then spend the money that would have been wasted on her treating real amputees. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I get your anger, I do. You see, as you said, real people with real problems. and decide this woman doesn't have a real problem - or at least it's a different problem. But I'm left wondering this: it is extremely rare, and left alone, people have acted on it, cutting off hands or legs, and winding up needing treatement for it. and we know that it is a real mental condition. So at some point, you have to take it seriously, and get over the anger. I am not sure anyone is ready to actually amputate yet, i think they are all trying to figure out how you help her live without that. but that's, again, for experts to work on, i think. not lay people who stand around and pontificate on what we do and do not know. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 21:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one sensing an undercurrent of transphobia here? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 23:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That would be too strong a word. Let's just say skepticism about the wondrous multiplication of 'gender' identities. Transgender people are, in a way, plausible; it's both plausible and demonstrated that sometimes the wiring and the plumbing don't get along. This is significantly different; nobody's born with a working leg they shouldn't have. What she's asking the medical profession to do is unethical. This is a mental illness that should not be indulged. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It is quite true that studies have demonstrated the presence of gender identity disorder in the brain. Yet no studies have been conducted either way on this issue. Without any concrete information or formal background, who are we to judge these people? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 06:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There has been a little study on it, as part of a wider literature looking at dissociation between people and their bodies- Of note to this discussion; the condition has been reported to be resistant to both medication and therapy. More recent studies have tried to pinpoint neurological differences using MRI and have some preliminary evidence.Industriale (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Childporn/ Tor WIGO

Seriously, people who are too technically incompetent to disable scripting (Javascript was disabled in the beginning, but then got re-enabled for some odd reason of compatibility) on their browsers while doing something nefarious definitely deserve it. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Texas in one quote

"Texas was confident it would be able to continue with the deaths, despite the shortage." [1] Go Texas! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

'I love boobies' bracelets

According to one Facebook commenter on the Ottawa Citizen article, "Even if the judges don't know, parents know that this is going over the top." What's under the top? I don't know how effectively they promote anti–breast cancer, but they're fun and harmless at the least. If 'parents' want these banned, they're prudes that need to catch up with changing culture. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 09:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Basically, the people who want these things banned seem to think that even mentioning breasts has 'sexual undertones'. How exactly do they plan to promote good sexual health without mentioning any body parts? And it's pretty hard to combat breast cancer without using the word 'breast' Worm (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What amazed me is the prodigious amount of lawyer fees that must be getting spent on this. An en banc decision, even. Now we're contemplating taking boobies to the Supreme Court. It must be that important to somebody. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"How exactly do they plan to promote good sexual health without mentioning any body parts" - They don't. Compro01 (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

David Cameron's War on Porn

Regardless of the fact that this "censorship" scheme isn't going to work, what is the logic behind blocking everything (if you don't opt-out) to combat extreme and child pornography? It's a political abyss. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know enough about UK politics to figure out whether this is his own dumb idea or if he's trying to placate his party's social conservative wing after the same-sex marriage thing. Compro01 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's part of a grand scheme of his, to introduce a number of popular ideas, while at the same time not really doing anything. Brenden (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Well it is preferable that the public can be at least be hindered in accessing violent pornography that depicts persons as sexual objects, so I'm afraid I support David Cameron's proposal. Nobody argues against the censorship of child pornography on the basis that child pornography is caustic to society (among other reasons as well). Brenden (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather bothered by the idea that we should be blocking forms of expression simply because they depict persons as sexual objects. that would indeed be most art, advertising, television and media at large. *if* the film in question is explicit that this is done as fantasy, and if it is clear that all participants are actually actors and are willingly participating (vs the trend to 'real rape' scenes), then at some point you have to say, humans are what humans are, and "no harm no foul". I'm not convinced that watching porn harms anyone. at least not porn that is clearly made as porn, and not as i said, clips of real violence, or attempts to truly make something look like real violence and not "fantasy" (ie., snuf films - are they real, are they not? if you have to ask, then it's bad enough). Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 21:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what you'd expect from the Daily Mail on the subject. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's widely interpreted as a means to back door censorship. You get the ISPs to agree that they can and will filter out child porn. Then that they can zap "extreme" porn because that's nasty. Then holocaust denial and white supremacist sites have to go because those people are evil. Before you know it government agencies are mailing over a list every morning, "Barry Shitpeas said something unflattering about the Great Leader on Youtube, make sure it's gone by midday. Also have any citizens who notice sent for re-programming"; "Wikipedia has all this awful history stuff in it that's no longer authorised reading. Zap the whole thing".

There are smaller, professional outfits that Cameron's fixers will have known from the start want nothing to do with this. Very wisely Cameron chose to ignore them. For now most of the rules don't apply to them, and those which do have never been used in anger. In this new initiative they weren't even contacted. Going after the market leaders gives the PR boost that was undoubtedly desired, while avoiding the worst of the flack from the most acutely interested parties, people like me, because none of us are affected, having had plenty of other reasons to leave market leading ISPs already (e.g. none of them offers IPv6)

It can't work from Westminster, but they could have a good damn try and might cause a lot of harm in the process. The last chance any of the individual governments had to make this work was prior to the DNSSEC enabled root. With that in place, after a lot of political back and forth, the consensus becomes a mathematical reality, the answer to fundamental questions about the Internet is subject to an authoritative and unforgeable answer. So to censor something you have to begin with co-operation by the root operators, who to the extent that they're responsible to anyone at all are responsible to a variety of governments (e.g. the US department of defence), independent research entities (RIPE, WIDE) and private companies (Cogent) around the world. If you can get them to agree what to have for lunch you're doing well‡, let alone what should or shouldn't be censored.

‡ Trick question, almost to a man they are real ale drinkers. Lunch will be liquid, and from some sort of microbrewery. Tialaramex (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Kind of a massive slippery slope you have there... Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 23:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What, me worry? I don't think Cameron personally intends broad censorship of the sort some worry about, but that doesn't mean it couldn't begin with him anyway. It's just so tempting you see, the UK courts already demonstrated that. The big ISPs in the UK have for a long time operated a (voluntary) censorship for alleged child pornography. The censorship is very coarse, it doesn't magically put a black bar over a fourteen year-old's tits or anything like that, it just prevents access to the entire site (e.g. Wikipedia, yes that's a real example - look it up) where somebody reported seeing something inappropriate, after confirmation by a human operator. Hollywood companies went to court claiming that these ISPs profit from copyright infringing downloads, and the courts asked "So, this child porn censorship, you basically put web sites on a list, and everything on the list can't be viewed, right?" and the big ISPs had to confess that yes, that's how it works. "Great," said the court "then you can put this Pirate Bay thing on the list, and we'll let you know as and when of any other things which need adding". So overnight the "voluntary" filter that's in place to supposedly protect children is now a mandatory feature to protect the profits of huge global companies. No legislation needed. You cannot "opt out" of this censorship, by the way, it was only ever voluntary in the sense of "the ISPs did it without a legal requirement" and now it isn't even that.

Today a small minority of Internet users in the UK subscribe to smaller ISPs which don't do censorship. Those ISPs were unaffected by the Pirate Bay court ruling (they had no such list to add anything to) but if Cameron is able to characterise this straight forward anti-censorship position as pro-child abuse then he'll have them on the ropes. He doesn't even have to say it outright, he could probably get Daily Mail readers to make their feelings clear. Bang a few heads together, threaten some people's families, maybe trash the offices. Then home again to fuck the kids. Doing it is OK, so long as nobody sees any evidence, right? That's the principle Cameron stands for. Tialaramex (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That's always the big problem with any form of censorship - you start with what seems reasonable, but it can and usually does snowball into things that aren't so reasonable. There's also the problem of who decides what should be censored, using what criteria. For example, say someone posts a picture of two toddlers playing around in a bathtub onto Flickr - is that a cute picture of family life, or child porn? 86.139.124.138 (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

But Jesus was a WASP

Of course it is my own prejudice why I have reached for this conclusion first, but surely the Messiah-family wouldn't have had the problem if the baby were white? I wonder if this judge would extend things to cover the Latino name Jesús ("hey Zeus" - to reference, ahem, a Die Hard film) given half a chance?

Further to my mocking of other people based on my assumption they don't like "other people", I doubt the fact that Muhammed being the most common name in the world would be a useful defence for Mary and Joseph^W^W Jaleesa and god. The judge would be all like "Muslims=terrorists, therefore facets of that culture are unacceptable. Even though calling your child Muhammed in a wide swathe of the world is totally acceptable, a parallel isn't here, y'all".

92.40.255.77 (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I like how the judge arbitrarily decides on the name herself instead of having the mother and/or father change it. --OverworldTheme (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Normally I'd sympathise, it would surely make more sense to order the parents to fix this. But this seems to have been one of those cases where nobody is interested in agreeing on anything, and the most useful thing a judge can do there is just insist on something arbitrary. If they unite both sides in hating the judge's decision then they give the two parties an opportunity to learn a valuable lesson: Picking something is often more important than what is picked. You think the bridge you should be painted red, the other guy thinks blue, but if you don't paint the bridge it'll rust and fall down. So paint the fucking bridge whatever colour and get over it.

I can understand how an American couple might not know this, because after all refusing to learn this lesson is at the heart of modern Republican national policy. Every day on TV they see elected politicians saying that they'd rather the whole bridge falls into the sea than consider for one moment painting it blue, and they'll say they're fiscally conservative, because after all letting the bridge fall into the sea costs nothing, right? Tialaramex (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Except the child's given name was never in dispute. It's the surname they can't agree on. So it's less like the judge deciding what color to paint the bridge and more like the judge ignoring the bridge and deciding what to paint the lighthouse because the color offended their religious sensibilities. --OverworldTheme (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, the religious angle is fully crazy, I was just addressing the reason for naming the kid rather than kicking it back to the kid's parents. Tialaramex (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

To the back of the bus!

I'm seeing that this bus driver sent a gay couple to the back of the bus. I'm not seeing the part where he sent them to the back of the bus because they were gay. Apparently it happened when "one of them started singing". Now, was it because he dislikes gay folk? Quite possibly. But I'd like something a little more concrete before I actually feel the outrage here. Did he call them a slur? Did he mutter something nasty? What was the driver's cited reason for moving these people? Apokalyps2547 (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it matters. It's illegal in most places to discriminate against gays. It is against the policy of the bus to discriminate against anyone for pretty much any reason. If someone is singing, you ask them to be quite, not disturb other passangers. you don't move them to the back of the bus.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 21:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to say

It's interesting to compare the amount of mainstream media uproar involved in the Zimmerman trial about stand your ground laws (even when a) the gun was legal and b) SYG wasn't even used) to the latest Florida case. Guess the world just doesn't care when a black guy kills a black guy. 124.179.90.135 (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Jurors were told in final instructions by Circuit Judge Debra Nelson that they should acquit Zimmerman if they found "he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary." Just because the defense claimed only self-defense rather than stand-your-ground does not mean that the jury has to ignore that Florida law holds that there is never an obligation to retreat. Crow7878 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There was a lot of misunderstanding about what "stand your ground" is. IT is not something you "use". You do not get up and say "jury, my client stood his ground". it is a level or legal standard underwhich a defendant can claim he was using self defense. In the old self defense, Zimmerman would have had to show that 1) he had been attacked FIRST, 2) that he attempted to diffuse the situation, that 3) baring diffusing he tried to run, and 4) only THEN after all that could he shoot to save his own life - and even then, you are supposed to shoot to harm, not kill. Stand your ground says that "the use of lethal force can be used without the above situations, if the person felt threatened". That is, to prove self defense after SYG laws were written, zimerman did not have to try to diffuse the situation; either could have landed the first blow; he did not have to run (hence, stand your ground, by hte way), and he did not have to try to "disarm" or "wound". It very much was used int his case as the standard for self defense, and the Judge specifically laid it out that way.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 21:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

SYG and Rape

I'm not an American, so I wonder if SYG laws also apply to rape cases or will you be told that "you shouldn't have dressed slutty"? -Strangelove (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

SYG only applies in defense of life or limb of yourself or others.--Token Conservative (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the state, as Michigan says that, "An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies: ... (b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual."

Actually TC, you miss the point. SYG does NOT apply where there is real threat to life or limb. but "fear of..." which is a very giant big grey zone out there, just waiting to be abused. The very distinction between SYG and "self defense" is the idea you have a right to act when you are afriad, and before something has happened to prevent it, not just after you have been attacked and are defending yourself form real threat. as for rape, if you have a gun, then yes, SYG would work if you FELT THREATENED. of course, how SYG is applied is up to a Judge. and if the judge thinks the woman is asking for it, he might disallow the syg. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 21:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Rebecca Watson should have just shot the guy in the elevator. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"Enjoy your upcoming lawsuit"

This WIGO confuses me. Tim Armstrong committed a serious executive faux pas by firing someone mid-conference call, overheard by upwards of a thousand employees. Tactless, yes, but illegal? Explain to me how this could possibly end in a lawsuit? The article implies nothing of the sort. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In the US, if that's where this was, EVERYTHING is a lawsuit. doesn't mean the fired person will win, but there's all kinds of things he can *claim*. again, being ILLEGAL is not the same as being civilally accountable. if it hurt the fired guy's rep, if it cause the fired guy emotional pain and suffering, it's easy to sue.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 20:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, a chance to link to SATW. Sophie^Wilder 21:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so the whole joke is "this is America, so assume there will be a lawsuit"? I assumed there was something more factual or clever involved. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hooters

So a company that employs women because of their bust size bars someone for disrespecting women. Right. What am I missing here? Sophie^Wilder 20:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Easy, when reality clashes with fantasy. They have to have policies in place to prevent them from coming under serious discrimination lawsuits. So, they make up "rules" about what respect is. Same with strip joints. "no hands on the ladies", "no masterbating in front of them" etc., even though the entire set up is at it's core, disrespect. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 20:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Those policies aren't so much about respect as they are about the comfort of the employees.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty sad when you lose the moral high ground to Hooters. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"Details are still solidifying"

I see what you did there...

We're (mostly) fine, save perhaps for Marlborough. It doesn't seem to be any worse than last months, at least. Peter ^mqzp 05:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you down that way? I live next to Seddon Park _(Hamilton) and have not felt a thing. I understand there has been no major damage this time, but it may only be a matter of time. Incidentally I ran out of petrol in Sedden once - it is a bit of a stretch to call it a town since it doesn't even have a petrol station! --Damo^Hi 05:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just north of Wellington proper, and had only recently got home when it hit—which meant that I managed to miss the traffic chaos afterwards.

By this point Seddon can't be known for anything but quakes, for all Wikipedia's protests to the contrary. Peter ^mqzp 05:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Fuck the Olympics

No further text needed Scherben (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Remember the Black power salute? This Olympics might eclipse that. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I really do hope so; just to see that bigot Putin squirm (actually, he won't: psychos never do) Scherben (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There used to be a law (there still is)

The Working Time Directive is the relevant EU directive and the UK's implementation is called the Working Time Regulations.

Here's the original text, because 1998 is a long time ago and bureaucracy is hard you'll have to mentally apply the subsequent amendments yourself

The goal of the directive was to harmonise regulation across Europe. The goal of the regulations is to provide workers with adequate rest, both in the short term (breaks periodically through the working day), the medium term (maximum length of a working day, required breaks between working) and the long term (paid holiday). This is good practice from the point of view of promoting health of your citizens, and makes good economic sense because tired workers are inefficient.

But, neither the directive nor the regulations can prevent a person from voluntarily overworking, as seems most likely to have been the case here. The employer can be prevented from making you work crazy hours (or without a break, or without holiday) or even from tacitly encouraging such a thing but it's much harder to stop you from choosing to work those hours anyway.

In addition it's hard to tell from the reporting, but this scenario might be Unmeasured Working Time. People who clearly have the autonomy to manage their own time are excluded entirely from these regulations. That would obviously mean roles such as Prime Minister, or the directors of a big company, but also parish priests, rural doctors or someone like me. Would it include an intern? It might do, it rather depends on whether they had that level of practical autonomy. Tialaramex (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

According to an "anonymous banker" they could clock up to 100 hours a week, so I question that he did this by choice. Anyways, this is just going to put more attention on intern regulations (regardless of salary), which is been long called-for anyway. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the UK, but legal or not over here there's a lot of "well, you don't have to work long hours, but if you do good things will happen to your career". It's not just meant to be advice for interns, either, I see it pushed a lot in the business world, usually with the overtones that if you only work your set hours you're lazy and the company is right to lay you off. --OverworldTheme (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Undoubtedly many workers in the UK do feel that if they put in the hours it will be to their advantage. It seems to be cultural, in some places elsewhere in Europe workers don't see it this way and even before the directive they had no problems with overworking. Penalising employers who actually do encourage overworking, let alone mandate it, is obviously the Right Thing™ (the Working Time Regulations prescribe fines for this sort of thing, not a payment to the employee that might create a perverse incentive), but the question of what to do when it's an unfounded belief is trickier. You will often see HR people promoting the idea of "work life balance", is that enough effort? Setting an example might be a good idea, but not one that I see being realised any time soon. If the boss says "Don't work so hard, it's just a job" but he's there every morning when you arrive and still there every evening when you leave, that advice feels a little hollow. Tialaramex (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"Work-life balance" is a big damn lie. The Big 4 accounting firms have been bleating about work-life balance for years and they still judge you primarily on your willingness to maximize billable hours (i.e. if you get the same work done in fewer hours, you aren't promoted as fast and your raise is smaller — because the firm can't charge the client for as many hours as they'd like). "Work-life balance" means "shut up and enjoy your 80-hour work weeks." Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Firefox and JavaScript

Hrmph. "Kill your product" my ass, Limi. I must be part of the claimed 2% who still like on/off switches. A lot of javascript's "value" seems to be in aid of delivering dancing bologna that I don't care to see. Before going to some resource-hogging sites (I'm looking at you, MSNBC) that light up my CPU load indicator, I disable js in my antiquated copy of FF. Yet another reason not to "upgrade." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I turn off javascript so frequently that I installed an add-on specifically so I wouldn't have to futz around in the options menu every time I switched it on/off. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't something like NoScript negate the effects of having Java on, anyway? --PsyGremlin^Snakk! 09:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like anti-Firefox propaganda of some sort (leave this body Google Chrome demon!). Well, good, maybe they will rethink the idea of oversimplifying for no apparent reason except, well, their Google fear. Anyway, if you're not too lazy — and if you're not using Windows or at least Internet Explorer, you can't be that lazy — you still can deactivate javascript: just go to about:config and turn javascript.enabled to false. A malware made in FBI: what a (bad) joke. All hail freedom in America! (ah ah)--Sultan Rahi (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's easy to install add-ons that restore the missing function; and editing about:config isn't all that much of a hassle. Still, given the news about the US gov't virus, at minimum the timing is unfortunate. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

What you guys also need to understand is, Firefox 23 turns on Javascript even if you had it disabled in a previous version when it updates, and there is no warning of this. And then it takes away the checkbox and requires you to dig into about:config, something no average user is going to do. Scripting is also a gigantic vector for malware. The only malware I've gotten on my own machine in six years has come from sites delivering me shit in driveby downloads, most often in malicious ads. The average user isn't aware of and doesn't know that they should care about this, but burying it in about:config is hostile to the user.

On the (separate) topic of the FBI's use of Javascript on tor, the more insidious thing is that even the long-term support version of Firefox included in the Tor browser bundle has been having its Javascript turned on by default in more recent releases of the Tor bundle. If you care about security, Javascript is not safe to leave on constantly. Now, really, you should be using something like NoScript, but Mozilla is not helping at all here. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 04:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't think that it's a good idea to turn off a security feature without telling the users what it's doing, and then hiding the means to turn it back on again. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Turning Javascript off does tend to break most websites these days. Hide the option deeper in the preferences UI and include a little text box saying "This is going to break functionality on lots of sites, consider an extension like NoScript instead" or something. Maybe don't advertise NoScript directly, or just point to a special category of extensions that is all of the scriptblocking extensions for impartiality reasons, but burying it is actively hostile to the average user, who now has to go under the hood where changing the wrong settings can brick Firefox. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 22:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What 'average user' doesn't (want to) have JavaScript turned on? If you're going to turn it off, at a minimum you should know how to do things like mess around with the advanced Firefox settings, which is pretty easy by the way. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 23:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I usually leave Javascript off unless visiting sites like deviantart that I know don't work with it, and if there's a "mobile" site for fancyphones I'll use that preferentially as well. Leaving JavaScript off tends to avoid lightbox based nuisance popups. It's important also if your local paper is a Gannett paper; visit a site like http://www.courier-journal.com/ with JavaScript on and you'll be told that you can only access the page so many times without proving you're a subscriber. No JavaScript, no popup and no annoyance. It usually prevents nuisances like transparent overlays on images and other attempts to interfere with browser operations. I generally consider JavaScript to be an annoyance, and it's used at least as often to force feed undesired content or turn off browser functions as it is to serve anything actually wanted. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of which, are (as in not discontinued) there browsers that prompts you whether you want to run javascripts on a site to site basis? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No, not to my knowledge. Well, Chrome will let you block Javascript by default and then give you a little icon in the address bar to whitelist that page, but it's very simple. There are extensions that give you much finer-grained control over Javascript. I suggest NoScript for Firefox and ScriptSafe for Chrome. These two extensions block scripting on almost all websites by default. This means that, until you train the extension with the sites you visit often, this will ruin browsing for you. However, it's also instructive on how much of the web absolutely cannot function without running active code in the browser. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 05:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Citing The Blaze

Really? And I was complaining about the links to the Huffington Post...--ZooGuard (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Headlines that say "may"

Is there an equivalence of Betteridge's Law regarding newspaper headlines that use the word 'may'. The Grauniad article about Indonesian girls "may" have to undergo virginity tests is reporting the ranting of an extremist. If you actually read the article the likelihood of this happening is very low. From the article itself -

"Local and national MPs, activists, rights groups and even the local Islamic advisory council have all denounced Rasyid's plan as potentially denying female students the universal right to education, in addition to targeting girls for an act that may not have even been consensual, such as sexual assault." (emphasis added)

and

"Indonesia's education and culture minister, Muhammad Nuh, condemned the plan and said the district needed 'a wiser way to address the issue of teen sex'."

But it's far more fun to jump to conclusions. Innocent Bystander (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It was added by User:Proxima Centauri. Sapienti sat.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Banning, now enforceable by Law.

Yup, I totally see this being completely enforceable and not causing a massive backlog in already backloged courts. --Revolverman (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh god please someone tell Karajou. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Who cares about backlog? "Right to a speedy trial" has been reduced to such a joke that having a trial 5 years after arrest has been considered reasonable. Also, this will be a wonderful tool for DAs looking to get some easy convictions to bolster their "Tough on crime" conviction numbers for an election year. Compro01 (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Iridologist

Why second degree? (I didn't think we even had degrees of murder here.) Peter ^mqzp 22:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't. Manslaughter is the only possibility for this person, and even that is unlikely. --Damo^Hi 21:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I wrote it with out non-NZer editor base in mind. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's another along those same lines: "Psychic" swindles clients out of 25 million dollars what the... Refugee^{talk page} 02:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that I have an awful lot of sympathy for someone who gives $20million to a psychic. 'A fool and his money' and all that. --Damo^Hi 02:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That was my first reaction as well. But after reading the article became convinced that it was another case of someone preying on the ill and/or emotionally compromised by claiming to have healing powers or special abilities to help them. It's sad. Refugee^{talk page} 06:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Congressional approval on Syria

If Obama doesnt launch Tomahawks immediately against Assad, a House vote could be one of the most hilarious farces we've seen in a long while. The GOP line for months has been that the administration has failed miserably on the crisis (see McCain and Graham); having the party turn their backs might finally reveal the neocon/libertarian crack. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps its a bit dramatic, but if there was a vote, we could see a party break up on Hawk/Libertarian lines. Never mind how those who would vote yes if it was Bush/Any Republican Prez but won't since its Obama. --Revolverman (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Abuse on Twitter

Twitter has faced strong criticism because of allegations that some users especially women face sustained harassment and illegal threats. Notably a campaign by women's groups to have at least one woman (Jane Austin) featured on UK Banknotes lead to difficulty. Campaigners including women Members of Parliament faced harassment including rape threats, there have been two arrests. A petition for making the process of complaining about harassment easier had 124,000 signatures as of 3/8/2013. There is concern that a relatively minor campaign over Jane Austin on a banknote could set off such serious criminal activity and campaigns over more important issues could have even worse consequences.

Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper wrote:

“”Despite the scale and seriousness of these threats, the official response from Twitter continues to be extremely weak – simply directing Caroline [Caroline Criado-Perez] away from Twitter towards the police, and, belatedly, directing users to abuse-reporting forms on Twitter. Of course it is right to report such abuse to the police, and it is very important that they investigate and pursue this case. But social media platforms also have a responsibility for the platform they give users. And in particular they have a responsibility not to tolerate this kind of abuse, rape threats and potentially criminal behaviour. (...) The response by Twitter has clearly been inadequate and fails not only Caroline but many more women and girls who have faced similar abuse on your social network. (...) I urge you to go further and ensure that Twitter carries out a full review of all its policies on abusive behaviour, threats and crimes, including more help for Twitter users who experience abuse, a clear complaints process and clear action from Twitter to tackle this kind of persecution,

—

Caroline Criado-Perez faced innumerable hostile and criminal tweets after her part in the banknote campaign, she wrote in the New Statesman:

“”They’re not looking for attention. They are purely and simply looking to shut me, and any other woman who dares use her voice in public, “the fuck up”. And we shouldn’t give them what they want. We shouldn’t give them what they want because we have a right to speak and be heard. And we shouldn’t give them what they want because, when we don’t, we are stronger than them.

—

Twitter claimed the process of complaining has been improved but critics say more far reaching changes are needed.

Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we need an article about abuse on Twitter? That depends on how effective new systems to protect users turn out to be. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would we have an article about social media being used by assholes to continue being assholes? How is that different from misogynists on Tumblr or with hateblogs on any blogging platform/host? I don't understand how this is on-mission by itself. It deserves a mention on appropriate pages such as Rape apologists or Rape culture, but I don't think it deserves its own article, Prox. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 18:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's the fact that they are finally stepping up to do something that is note worthy. it has been the single biggest/easiet way to fuck with women, including very real, very innocnet women like victims of rape - who end up killing themselves. Twitter wanted it to just go away, or wanted to be able to say, ala pirate bay "we just host the service, we have nothing to do with the content". But that's not going to fly. And it was added to rape culture the day twitter finally admitted it had some cupiblity in these things, and had to change policy. Facebook's tollerance of rape jokes (and i don't mean, "some girl was walkign down teh street and...) but seriously sick jokes about women who had been raped, with images of raped women, "she deserved it, hahaha that's so funny" - their policy change is also noted, cause it's also note worty. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 21:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it might make more sense to create a page or section of a page on the threats women face in the specific section of the internet. It would be a nice place to document stuff like this, especially for later reference. I'd be up for an argument on why it deserves its own page, though, but as it stands I do think it definitely deserves a section somewhere. Shadow of Lords ^talk 13:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Asylum in Sweden

Why wouldn't it work? Scherben (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Its hard for a person who has little more then rags to cross about.... 7500km's of rugged terrain. --Revolverman (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

When I saw this in my watchlist, I first instictively thought it was about the Asylum film company that produces those knock-offs of blockbusters.

Carry on talking about Snowden or whatever. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 06:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If you read the article, Sweden accepted 14,700/44,000 of all Syrian asylum requests in 2012 (33%). Assuming that 30-50,000 refugees will emigrate to Sweden annually via this policy, compare it with the current immigration rate of 100,000. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Daily Mail

I think in future stories from the Daily Mail should go in WIGO clogs. Sophie^Wilder 13:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

+1 - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought that was their default setting Scherben (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Barrister suspended

Prosecutor was just doing his job, made the mistake of saying something which was presumably true (he, unlike the newspaper pundits, has actually seen all the evidence) but nobody wanted to hear and it makes newspaper headlines. That's Cameron's Britain for you again, don't stop bad things from happening just make sure everybody is afraid to mention them and then we can pretend we live in an Enid Blyton book. Tialaramex (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

"Presumably true?" Fuck you, thirteen year old sexual assault victims do not need to be referred to as "predatory" in court, especially not by the prosecution. How the hell does a thirteen year old girl prey on a grown man? He fucked up and said something stupid and offensive, and he's getting punished for it, just like any other job where your represent a larger body. RachelW (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

What she said. someone on a comment section said "if a 13 year old child ran up to you, stripped before you, got on her knees and begged you, it is still your job and obligation to walk away, if you are an adult". no 13 year old is a predator, even if they are "hitting on you", cause to be a preditor means you have some level of power. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 21:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

He should be thrown in prison for the rest of time.--Token Conservative (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I really hope you're being sarcastic. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

No, "fuck you" RachelW. What you're doing here is chanting along with the tabloids, heedless of the evidence. You are part of the problem. We can tell that you're doing that because only the lay media thought it was relevant that he's a prosecutor. Here's the fat deal on that: The prosecutor represents the Crown's interest in justice, though the system is often described as adversarial in truth only the defence is obliged to prioritise "winning" a case, the Crown is playing a longer game, where a "win" at the expense of justice is actually a loss for everyone. Failing to reveal mitigating factors to the court would be to the detriment of justice. So it is totally normal for a prosecutor to offer mitigations at sentencing.

You want to believe that no thirteen-year-old would prey on an adult. It would be nice to live in a world where that's true, wouldn't it? But alas even in cosy Britain our youngest female murderer was just twelve. Regardless of what you want to believe, the evidence speaks louder. And we don't have the evidence, the person who did is the one you, and the pundits, want tarred and feathered. That ought to give you considerable pause, but it probably won't, more's the pity. Tialaramex (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there is no set of facts, none, that could EVER set a 13 year old child as a "preditor" of an adult male (in his 30s, by the way.. not some 18 year old teen who'd never had sex). It is never acceptable to "excuse" the man for raping here, but even worse to identify the CHILD, yes CHILD as a preditor. This is not about the media, it's about fucking a child, and then claiming "but she came on to me". and a judge sayign "you're right, she clearly did".Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 21:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Meh. I don't think there's much in this either way. The mere fact that a middle aged guy had sex with a 13 year old is enough for a conviction, but it is part of the prosecutors job to indicate the factors that aggravate or mitigate the crime for the judge to consider upon sentencing. A violent rape will attract a longer sentence than a non-violent one and I think that is appropriate. "Predatory" might not have been the appropriate word, because it is indicative that the victim was somehow responsible for the crime. On the other hand I don't know that I really accept without question the notion that a 13 year old girl is incapable of being both sexually active and able to manipulate a man. That would not be relevant to verdict but is (rightly IMO) relevant to sentence. Damo^Hi 22:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

As you can see from Godot's response the facts are irrelevant to some people which is why it doesn't bother them that they don't have the facts, this a matter of faith. Their faith tells them that certain things just don't happen, can't happen. You can't trump that with any argument. Life is so uncomplicated when you have faith. Tialaramex (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so harsh on Godot. I can understand her reaction. Perhaps I am biased too, given my line of work. In court you often have to make arguments that are not going to be popular, sometimes even ones that you feel bad about running, but at the end of the day one's first duty is always to the court; always. Not to the client, nor to victims or witnesses. We are, of course, at a distinct disadvantage since we don't know(and never will know given the nature of the case) what particular set of facts led to this comment being made but I have yet to meet a judge who would repeat such a thing lightly in a sentencing decision. That being said, it will be interesting to see what happens and read the report if he ends up before a disciplinary board. Damo^Hi 23:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems like in Tialaramex's world, we should suspend our disbelief and assume that any 13-year-old girl might have just been walking around with a gun threatening to shoot men unless then have sex with them, or something else ridiculous like that. Do we assume that someone is guilty of committing murder? Certainly not. Once we have shown that they *did* kill someone, however, we don't then take 30 steps wondering, "Well maybe the person was taunting him, maybe they tried to start a fight." Of course, this is not how a justice system should work. We don't assume you did the act, but once it is shown that you did the act, then you have to show you have a legitimate reason for it (self-defense, for example). "I may have broken that pre-teen's nose, but he was asking for it your honor! How dare you assume he didn't manipulate me into punching him, you have to prove that he didn't!" Shadow of Lords ^talk 13:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Rather than suspending our disbelief about unlikely theories made up by ShadowofLords I have recommended only that we should defer to the people who have the actual evidence. The purpose of the mitigations offered on sentencing is not to invent fanciful alternate histories but to present aspects of the offence that influence the just and proportionate sentence. You say there's no evidence, but the truth is that you haven't seen the evidence. None of us have. As usual with the "trial by newspaper story" we're being asked to condemn someone based on a half-arsed re-telling of part of the story. Tialaramex (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Malawi President sells jet

I'm touched Scherben (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

She seems quite intelligent too. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Voyager 1 leaves the Solar System. Again.

Wasn't this news a few months ago? And a few months before that? And on two separate occasions last year? Am I the only one who remembers this? Apokalyps2547 (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This is NASA confirming that, yes, Voyager actually did really leave the solar system last year (sometime on August 25, 2012). Defining where exactly the solar system ends and interstellar space begins and how to identify when you've crossed that boundary is a non-trivial thing. There's not exactly a city limits sign out there. Compro01 (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I see the article describes Voyager 1 as "the first manmade object to leave the Solar System." So who made Pioneer 10? Sophie^Wilder 21:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well no, Pioneer 10 had not left the heliopause yet, at least according to projections based on its velocity at the point of last contact. As of September 2012, Pioneer 10 was projected to be 100 AU out from Earth, while on August 25th, when data suggested that Voyager 1 had left the heliopause, it was about 120 AU out. According to that data and those projections, Pioneer 10 would have crossed the heliopause after Voyager 1 (by a significant margin, given that Pioneer 10 is projected to be travelling at just over 2 AU per year). Hell, Pioneer 10 might not make it until after 2020. - GrantC (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought the Klingons or someone dealt with Pioneer 10 years back? Scherben (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Pioneer 10 is moving slower. It didn't pick up the gravity assists the Voyagers got. Voyager 1 overtook Pioneer 10 back in 1998. Compro01 (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason to leave the awkward Pioneer 10 chatter in the WIGO entry? --OverworldTheme (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really, no. Sophie^Wilder 07:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)