There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Is it a stupid idea to have another word for twelve?||10||07:09, 4 June 2012|
|List||5||06:54, 4 June 2012|
|Is there such a thing as a homosexual who isn't radical for Eugene Delgaudio?||0||01:53, 25 May 2012|
|Any Gossip Girl fans here?||1||03:27, 3 May 2012|
|Am I the only one that doesn't get Barbra Streisand?||0||03:11, 25 April 2012|
|I hate videogame publishers||0||23:26, 17 April 2012|
|other kin||1||06:28, 9 April 2012|
|Brilliantest cat evar||0||20:43, 7 April 2012|
|Wagwan||0||15:17, 29 March 2012|
|tonight's south park really sucked||8||01:06, 16 March 2012|
|Is anybody getting emails from me?||1||03:11, 15 March 2012|
|Wouldn't it suck if it turned out they were right?||0||02:58, 14 March 2012|
I mean, who thought it'd be good to organize things according to dozens?
Supposedly, Sumerians had their number system based off of the number sixty. I asked my father about it once and he said sixty was divisible by more numbers than ten, so it did sort of make sense. But why would having more multiples be easier?
to the first question, not really; many things have more then one word. According to the dictionary; its mid english, old french and then Latin for 12; though a cursory glance looking at some online site revealed only 1 to also have synonym English word in the first 16 numbers.
to the second point; stop pushing that 10 centric worldview!
The Romans. There was 12 ounces in a Roman pound and 12 pounds in a Roman stone. A carat of diamond is 1/144 Roman ounces. There was 12 lines in an inch and 12 inches in a foot. I could go on if you like. The old myth that you can't multiply in Roman numerals disappears if you know to work in 12s instead of 10s like you were taught.
I thought the problem with multiplying in Roman numerals was their lack of positional notation?
Again that is limiting the problem to our way of thinking. CXII = C + X + II so if you wish to multiply it by XIV you multiply (C+X+II).(X+IV) = C.X + C.IV + X.X + X.IV + II.X + II.IV = M + CD + C + XL + XX + IIX = MDLXIIX. You can make your life even easier thinking of IV as V - I.
Thanks, Pi, good stuff. Can you illuminate me on the Sumerians?
The Sumerians had a weird system that could have been base 10 if they had wanted. They got to 59 by writting 5 ten symbols and 9 one symbols, but instead of writing 6 ten symbol, they put 1 one symbol in the next position. 60 has the nontrivial factors, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20 and 30, where as 10 only has 2 and 5. My guess that it is because 60 is divisble by 1,2,3,4,5 and 6, they liked it for dividing circles.
Has the list been published? How do people know if they are on it or not?
If their post gets deleted, they know they're on the list/not on the list.
It'd be great if I could make a user group that isn't allowed to edit this page, but I realize that's asking way too much.
You could write a Mediawiki extension or two to do that, i.e. allow people to create/manage their own groups, and pick which groups get read/edit permission in their userspace.
You'd want to introduce the notion of a "Group owner", and allow users to create groups with themselves as owner, and then add/remove members and delete groups they own, but not groups owned by others or groups owned by the system.
Go buy yourself a book on PHP and give it a go. Even if this site never accepts the end product, you could learn a valuable skill.
Lol, all that so I can hold a conversation on RationalWiki without encountering trolls and blowhards!
Nah, the current system works fine for me, but thanks for the suggestion.
Is there such a thing as a homosexual who isn't radical for Eugene Delgaudio?
I'm on Public Advocate's mailing list, and I don't take the fool too seriously, but after a million hysterical emails about how he needs more money and gays are on the brink of conquering the world I am starting to get saturated.
Here's a pic that came with the latest email. It's of him and some other jackass that hates gays. Not gay
This plot-line about Chuck trying to find his mother because only a relative could have donated blood to him is ridiculous. Blood is blood. They could have just hooked him up with Type 0- and he'd have been fine. And with someone as wealthy as Chuck Bass, it's not like the hospital would have been scrimping. Had it been a kidney that needed to be donated, that would be plausible. The writers really dropped the ball on this one.
I just came across this quote: I told my mom about my pain in my back and the phantom wings and she said it was because im in front of the computer all day and not because I have wings. This makes me feel marginalized and oppressed, now i know how trans people feel when they are told they dont have dicks or vaginas.
Man, I can't stand furries and their ilk. I have no issues with other kinks or supposed deviancies, but furf**s really make my skin crawl. It's not really rational, either. When you get down to it, a furry is no different than a leather daddy, right? Just dress-up and roleplay. The only real argument I might have is that in sexualizing children's cartoon characters, furries risk attracting children. Thus they should keep their fucked up activities entirely behind closed doors. As for the whole "dragon trapped in a human's body" crap, I'm thankful we're too far from medical science for that to currently be an issue (although the South Park episode Mr. Garrison's Fancy New Vagina, where Kyle's dad gets plastic surgery to become a dolphin, was pretty disturbing). I guess ultimately it's your body, but I'm pretty sure that after a certain point desire your desire to change your body borders on mental illness (but if you recognize the face in my signature, you'll also recognize that that's a whole other discussion). And I'm not hating on the transgender. That, to me, seems understandable, unlike wanting to be part tiger or whatever.
Sometimes I've looked at the carefree life dogs have, at least well cared for dogs, and thought, wouldn't it be cool to be a dog? No career, no ambition, nothing to learn, just eat, crap, fuck (or maybe not, if they've taken away your gonads... but I'm not sure they realise what's going on, so they hopefully don't miss them), get patted and told "good boy"/"good girl", go for walks, chase lizards and birds, lie around sleeping.... Maybe that's part of why some people, psychologically, want to be animals, because being human is so fucked up... and while it has its definite advantages, sometimes its hard to see them...
I mean, I'm not really for the excessive TSA measures, but what really irked me was their inference that seat belts were just "big government." The racial stereotypes on the TSA agents were kinda reprehensible, too. Also, I don't like anything that might make the heinous Cartman look sensible. I think they should just start killing him every episode like they used to do with Kenny.
I live in a city where a helmet is not required to drive a motorcycle, but you can be pulled over and ticketed (and hassled) for not wearing a seat belt in an automobile. I thought it was pretty funny. Not the among the best, but I enjoyed it. As for the racial stereotypes, you thought that was reprehensible? If you were offended by that, then South Park may not be the show for you.
I felt as though in this case, the racial stereotypes were not presented in their typically absurd fashion.
And when it comes to not wearing a seat belt, I sympathize with "big government" for not wanting to scrape your brains off the asphalt. Another thing I didn't mention was that they seemed to be going after (so called) frivolous lawsuits. I would say, if you invent a machine that can suck out someone's intestines, you better have a good lawyer ready.
I've been taking South Park a lot more seriously of late. A lot of the opinions they put forth on their show are quite simply wrong (I'm thinking of Cartman's Silly Hatecrime and of everytime they mention/allude to global warming). Yes, it's just a cartoon, but it's a cartoon which takes on political matters- and some people take the opinions of South Park as though they were pundits. I've seen a few discussions on global warming shut down by people recalling "Manbearpig." I think that the creators of South Park should be more responsible with their content if they wish to continue presenting on serious issues.
Please, for your own sake, get back your sense of humor or stop watching the show.
Best quote: Randy Marsh, to a cop outside his bathroom window, while sitting on the toilet: "No, I was talking to 'my asshole!' C'mon, asshole, let's get back to work."
I thought it was rather entertaining. And...well, it's SOUTHPARK. They go out there.
FYI, I just tried pooping the other way on the toilet, as mentioned on the show. My thoughts? Not bad, actually. I don't, however, recommend it for anybody that doesn't have an open mind. Or if you are
an atheist obese.
Because I sent out a few emails in my much bemoaned absence, and I got no confirmation of receipt.
I remember sending out emails to Ty, Blue, and UHM. Ty doesn't seem to be interested in speaking to me, so I've few questions there (I wouldn't be surprised if he simply screened all emails with my username or powerword in it), but Blue usually responds to my emails and UHM gave no indication of having received it.
Which makes me sad...