User talk:AD/Archive6

Question

Do we still use revision delete still or is that your job, because the Bryant vandal hit the chik-fil-A article. Тy^{sic semper} 00:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure sysops can still do that. Thanks for the heads-up, though! I'll get right on it.--^talk 00:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Guess Nutty got to it first. Thanks :) --^talk 00:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Тy^rannosaurs 00:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sysops can still do it, but since everyone is (still) a sysop, mods need to "suppress" the revision to hide it from sysops. -- Nx / talk 06:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh ho! Thanks for the info, Nx! :) --^talk 06:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Global Warming

How is it for you down there? We are having snow flurries in the central city which I haven't seen for 15 years. Ace^{of Spades} 01:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been snowing steadily for two days, but in these long rattling fits that sound like handfuls of gravel against the windows. Then the sun came out and melted it mostly where I am near the sea, but they had to pretty much shut down the city.--^talk 02:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have passed us by now but it is the coldest I have felt it here in a long time. -2 with the windchill. Ace^{of Spades} 03:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

After this week, I would gladly give my daughters to a motorcycle gang for your weather. _{I don't actually have any daughters} P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 03:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the weather everywhere has been pretty weird lately.--^talk 03:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The cold doesn't bother me but extreme heat and humidity puts me in a shitty mood. Ace^{of Spades} 03:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You're lucky you're here, then. My wife is in the States right now, and she was just staggered by the volume of heat in New York. The heat index maps are grim.--^talk 03:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

coherent allegation

I fail to see how that comment has anything to do with the MC case. If he wants to bring me to the coop he can do that. But this is just a simple ad hominem, and quite frankly I'm sick of Human barging in and inserting his hate all over the place. -- Nx / talk 08:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sick of it, too. But he has every right to do so. This is actually the slippery slope of which we have been accused - censoring people because we find them offensive or rude or the like.

Don't get me wrong, Human is being an enormous gaping asshole riddled with carbunkles of shrieking hysteria. This is all the sadder because I used to be so fond of him and he has been so prominent here, but he has gotten so unbelievably nasty to so many people...

I get where you're coming from, Nx, I seriously do. But he's not a troll and he's not just spamming profanity, all he's doing is criticizing you (and others) in a hugely crass way. And users are allowed to criticize anyone without repercussions.

Either of you can bring it to the Coop, of course.--^talk 08:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

He's not criticizing people. Often he just pops in to tell someone that they're useless or an idiot or something, completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Here's a good example. If that's not trolling, I don't know what is. And about that edit you reinstated: my opinion is irrelevant because I abused my powers? How is that a coherent argument? It's an ad hominem. -- Nx / talk 08:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

He said you were abusing your powers. That's a coherent message and content, not just trolling or abuse.

To be frank, I am pretty leery of the idea of reverting things for just being abusive, anyway. But any way we come down on that issue, I would suggest that no one should be reverting "abuse" of themselves. We all have a hard time judging such things with an even head when we're the ones being abused.

Like I say though, I appreciate your position.--^talk 08:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"Nope, I have faith that you are wrong. Also bees. I have faith in bees. Also seat cushions."

Made my day. Well done sir. P.S.: Your blog is awesome. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha thanks!--^talk 23:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Where was that said? It sounds funny, and I'd like to laugh. Thank you.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Here. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No, this is how you do it

In the lower right corner of a comment box you'll find a link titled "More". Just click it, and in the menu there'll be an option titled Vaporize. As you've probably noticed already, all the replies will be deleted as well. -- Nx / talk 07:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh ho! Thanks, Nx!--^talk 07:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Message

Actually, I agree with what you added and then deleted. It should go back up. ADK^{...I'll run your Playstation 2!} 16:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well, FWIW. Тy^YAUA 16:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you should put it into essay space or something. IMHO the solution lies somewhere in-between. People get limited control over their talk pages, so they can remove "Fuck you, you fucking cunt", but in case of a dispute moderators decide. And here I'm hoping that moderators will be able to distinguish trolling from reasonable criticism that is being hidden unfairly. -- Nx / talk 20:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

<Trolling deleted, and seriously no one ever needs to wait for me to do it. Delete any MC nonsense that appears.--^talk 23:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)>

The fact you compare this to a real life trial makes me think you need better things to do. You've been here since 2007. That was your "defense" and your lack of willingness to stop trolling and harassing people. Duh. RatMaster ^háblame 19:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh, well, I guess I'll put it into an essay. Thanks for the input.--^talk 23:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

In-vitro meat

Thoughts? Тy^Yarrr 23:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yum! (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Might be okay, I guess. Probably a little wasteful right now, but maybe not in the future.--^talk 23:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, was looking for a vegetarians point of view. And believe me it is way too pricey right now. Тy^{Lonely. Ever so lonely.} 23:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I talk a little bit more about it and the general principles here.--^talk 00:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi AD, you would be pleased to know that in the year 2036 we have some quite delicious in vitro meat. I was planning on bringing some with me to show the people of your time, but we ran out. Emperor Schlafly prohibited it as being against the Bible (the Conservative Bible Project translation, of course — 2032 edition — the translation gets more and more "conservative" every single year) John Titor (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

How did he rise to supreme power?--^talk 00:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The exponential growth in conservative words resulted in a singularity of conservative thought, resulting in his election as President of the United States and subsequent elevation as Emperor of the Earth. John Titor (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

How is it that you escaped indoctrination?--^talk 01:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

capturebot?

Hi, can you please help me? My attempt at capturebot never works. :-( Do you know what I'm doing wrong? Thanks much! Refugee^{talk page} 23:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait...nevermind. Sorry, it looks like it just took a moment. Please excuse, sorry to be a bother. Refugee^{talk page} 00:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

g+

I should warn you, I have the tendency to ramble away. Тy^Complaints 03:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, is that you? Don't worry about it, I'm chatty too.--^talk 04:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that is me in all my glory. Тy^{sic semper} 04:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Essay:Why You Shouldn't Eat Meat

A very compelling and well written essay that is heartfelt but not preachy. Definitely makes me want to take a closer look at my diet. SoCal ^{But said it would be legal...} 07:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well good! I'm glad you liked it and that you're thinking about your diet. Thanks for letting me know!--^talk 07:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Brace yourself

If Terry Chuckarse writing bad fiction wasn't enough... his partner in cringe is doing it too! --PsyGremlinPrata! 16:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ahhaha awesome.--^talk 22:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

See now I'm really tempted to mock them, but that would also lead people to their site and give them more hits. Quandary!--^talk 10:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Jeniferlara22

You blocked this user as a spambot before they made any contributions. I'm not, for one moment, saying that you were wrong - I'm just asking how you knew. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Check deleted contribs. Or the deletion log. -- Nx / talk 09:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Suddenly I feel dumb (again). Thanks. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries - I'm glad you're keeping an eye on it! When I go mad with power, now I know who I have to eliminate!--^talk 10:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

JIDF page

Hi there. I added to some of your comments on the talk page. Please take a look. Thank you. --JIDF (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

I very much appreciate your help on the JIDF page! --JIDF (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Bin/Block

Mea culpa. Cheers for the correction :) Worm (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I used to do it all the time - easy mistake to make.--^talk 08:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Barn hens

Thought you might be interested in this. I normally buy free-range eggs but also buy Barn Eggs as they are usually billed as being an acceptable form of chook rearing, but then I spotted this post from someone who has rehomed some barn hens. The state they were in is comparable to battery hens :( Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

From what I've heard, in many countries there is absolutely no legal regulation of the term "free range", so when you buy free range eggs, how can you be sure they are actually free range? I've heard rumours to the effect that a lot of what is sold as "free range" eggs is actually battery eggs shoved in a free range packet. Haven't seen any hard evidence, but it is a rort which would be both very profitable (pay battery hen costs, sell at a free range premium) and very hard to detect (can you tell from the eggs themselves whether they are battery or free range?)

Of course, if keep your own hens, or get them from a source you know and trust (a friend, a family member, a farmer you know personally), you are on much safer ground. But if you walk into a supermarket, who knows what you are really buying. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I used to have two chickens but had to rehome them when the wife changed jobs. I'd like to have them again but they are a massive pain in the arse. They destroy your garden, eat everything they find (including cat poop), and I had to euthanise a mouse once which they caught and managed to smash every bone in its body against the patio. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

One of ours got a snake once. just strolled past the sliding window door with a decapitated snake in it's beak. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 11:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeesh, that's terrible. I believe it, though. These sorts of things are pretty loosely defined in a lot of places, and that leaves room for abuse. After all, the impetus behind ethical eggs is primarily economic for many producers, and so any time they can get the benefit of that label without the actual extra expense, well, that's exactly what they're going to do.--^talk 10:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW. It's a little biased but... As regards that other comment, within the EU the rules about "free range" and "barn" are pretty strict. Although I'm sure there are abuses it is a legal thing. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Good link, thanks. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That'd great! Viva la France and merrie olde England, and whatnot!--^talk 11:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Don't think I didn't see this, even though you reverted it. You call yourself a moderator, I would have expected better. And for the record, although I wouldn't say we get along, I don't hate you, and I am hopeful that maybe we might come to get along better. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Such kind words, SuspectedReplicant. Truly you are a noble person. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Why can't you be a nice person? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I can. Why can't you fuck off and stop bothering us? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Rob, but welcome to the new RationalWiki, where Maratrean never leaves... it is as if I have become part of the furniture... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Cheap chipboard furniture with a peeling veneer. You're a waste of skin. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Why?" I don't know. Some sort of glitch maybe or there might be something wrong with RW's copy of Mediawiki or maybe it's a mystery no really because i hate you go away forever--^talk 11:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't get into politics too much here, but the one rule I strongly disagree with is the idea that your "talk page" is community property. If you don't like a guy, why shouldn't you be able to say "nertz" to him or his posts in your tiny little world? I mean, if you don't like someone you already have to see them everywhere else... they shouldn't have to be invited into your home.En attendant Godot 13:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on it. I completely see that perspective - particularly at certain times - but I have a twofold reason for coming down on the other side of it and upholding the idea. First, there's the moral power of the "unanswerable question," the wiki version of the common "open letters" we see to politicians or media or whatnot. Here is my public challenge, where is your answer? That's something that is useful and that we probably want to retain, even if it means putting up with annoying folks to some extent. The other reason is practical: when we allow people to delete comments, it spills over in an ugly way to other pages. But I definitely, definitely see where you're coming from. As I've argued, both sides of this discussion have good solid reasons.--^talk 14:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it's cause I don't really get into edit wars (I tend to just let people have their way, then look back in a few weeks, and see if they care enough to be watching teh page - slicky dicky am I), or if it's cause i just so uber nice, but I've really never had anyone but Earthsomething bug me on my page. And i deleted it. I'll talk about about abortion, mine or in general on the appropriate pages. I'll debate or discuss on the articles and essays i've written. but when i "come home", and see that fun orange bar that means "someone cares enough to send the very best", I smile and like old fashion real mail, get exited to see who it is and what they say. And -- some things I just want to ignore.

I see you've argued both sides. :-) that's the sign of a good reasoning thinker. My best prof was from a "social injustice" class, (race, sex, and sexuality - i think), and said "your topic today is to write a sound argument about why Evo is wrong. Really sell it, don't just make fun of it. What are the real weaknesses to the Evo argument, and how deep can you chop those weakeneses up. Then another week we did equal pay (why it was bad), and welfare. Best way to see what you are trying to argue, is to really look at what the OTHER GUY could say, if the other guy had a brain. ;-)En attendant Godot 14:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean

Seriously, he's nearly always polite and thoughtful towards others. Isn't that enough? Who cares if he's the prophet and only adherent of his religion? Why must everybody act like he's me a choya cactus? I say it's enough that he's a nice person. It's enough to welcome him here with open arms. There may be the occasional editorial conflict, but so what? This is not a hive mind, and as long as were civil towards each other I don't see the problem with disagreeing. And Maratrean is almost always civil.--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have no problem with his religion. It's a super-fun tool to poke him with because it's so ridiculous, but that's not the source of my ire. I dislike him because of his staggering volume of verbiage - about 75% of most of his comments is just white noise. Also something about him otherwise that I can't quite put my finger on, but that I'll have to consider. It might be his tendency in a discussion to try to hammer it into a shape that suits whatever he actually wants to discuss and subsequent Gish Gallop to dissenters, I'm not sure.--^talk 12:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

On reconsideration, though, you make a good point. I should just quietly cringe whenever he insists on weighing in on something on my talk page or whatnot. Thanks for the heads-up.--^talk 12:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's good to know people can keep their hands off their ears in this age of Sarah Palins and Tea Parties.--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are informing me that there is more than one Sarah Palin, then my hand will return to my ear as I stab my brain out in despair.--^talk 12:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care about Mara. Likewise I think the only annoying aspect of his personality is his TL;DR posts, otherwise I think he's an alright guy. I do poke fun at his religion though, for tehlulz. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been convinced, and have taken a vow to simply completely pretend as if he does not exist.--^talk 13:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the thing you really don't like about me is I refuse to conform to your stereotypes of what a "crank" or "troll" should be... namely an editor who only ever posts about a single subject. I think, when I post about issues that have little or nothing to do with my particular religious and/or philosophical beliefs, that actually irks you more than when I post on those topics. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't "conform" to the sterotype of a troll. dear boy, i don't know why you are so arrogant about it. you are the precise definition of a troll. No trolls that are any good, troll only one topic. They post irrelevant, useless stuff everywhere. I have no particular opinion of you, by the way, except that you "know" you are right - which annoys me. You like to suggest you know more than others, about lots of things... even when your own posts show it's clear you don't. but hey, what'cha gonna do. En attendant Godot 13:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Not true, Mara. I think you post a lot of good quality info, and that never annoys me. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I say lay off the lil bastard. He's harmless. DickTurpis (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Godot, you don't like people who disagree with you. And you don't want to engage in rational argument on issues either, you already know you are right. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

.

^{— Unsigned, by: Ace McWicked / talk / contribs}

Weaksauce, dude.--^talk 13:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Weaksauce? Dude man, I've seen your drinking habits. Weaksauce indeed. Ace^{of Spades} 13:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Tonight I had some Monteiths and then some Emerson's Bookbinder and some Speights, according to what was cheap at various places. I liked the Emerson's the best.--^talk 13:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Emersons is good. There is a new brewing bar open up here called..well, I can't remember but they have some amazing beers. All NZ brewed. If your ever up this end of the country I'll take you out and get you well liquored. Ace^{of Spades} 13:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sweet as.--^talk 13:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

this one is my new favourite. Ace^{of Spades} 13:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Barefoot running?

Lots of ideas in no particular order:

1. You do barefooting? I have a pair of Vibrams that I wear when I feel like it and I train in minimus roads. I`ve never bothered to go all the way barefoot

2. Ever heard of runblogger? he`s a great resource for minimalism.

3. You`ve read Born to Run right? --Hi! (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

1. I was too cheap to buy Vibrams. I just decided to start running again - I did cross country in high school but dropped it, and did no sports in college - and I wanted to keep it interesting. Running barefoot was the way to do it, so I hit the pavement. My feet were a mess for a first couple of weeks, but it was interesting. Got some glass in my heel once, but overall it was way more fun than any other time I'd run and I had some amazing calluses. I was able to train up to an hour at pace eventually, although now I'm in the weight room if I'm anywhere because it takes less time.

2. No, I'll take a look. I've never really gotten into any sort of fitness communities online, although I do use Fitocracy.

3. I skimmed it, but haven't gone through the whole thing. It seems to hold up pretty well, but I lack the science to really assess his thesis. Very interesting, though.--^talk 06:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I`ve tried running up and down the street barefoot a couple times, but that always left my feet with blisters that didn`t justify it. That being said, running in vibrams is a completely different experience than running in shoes, even minimal shoes; I imagine running barefoot is just as different from vibrams.

...Running barefoot is on my list of things to try after college...

I`ve used Nike + and dailymile, but I never keep up with those things. I think I get more out of running when I don`t worry about planning it out.--Durbinator^{The truth has a liberal bias!} 02:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never tried Vibrams. Running barefoot was interesting, which is why I could keep it up. I had to watch where I was going carefully (glass, dogshit, rocks), think about my pace and gait, and think of creative ways to ignore neighbors who wanted to chat about why I wasn't wearing shoes.

The callouses build up in a pretty short time. I never got to the point where I could run on asphalt, but I made it from dirt to concrete sidewalk in about two weeks. It's important to listen to your feet, though - when you can feel the lingering burn on the pads of your feet, like they're being ablated even in between strides, then back off and run on the grass or something for a little bit. That was my experience anyway.

Oh, also, put a towel near the door for when you return. You can't just take off your shoes and have clean feet if you're barefoot.

This is making me want to start up again.--^talk 02:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If you got the time, go for it... I say that with as much weight as an internet-stranger can haha

There are a few places around here that I could go barefooting, but I don`t care enough to go out of my way to run there when I can get away with running on the road in my vibrams.

I`d say the same thing holds true for vibrams; you definitely mind your stride a lot more. Idk about the thicker soled ones, but mine are pretty flimsy. Stray rocks hurt. Durbinator^{An armchair calls to you} 01:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Illegitimati non carborundum

Don't let the bastards grind you down.
best regards,
Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Five years of Latin actually came in handy in daily life for once!--^talk 02:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that Tamil or Telugu would come in handier if you wanted to communicate with those dudes. So many Indo-European idioms, so little time. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

They do not speak any Indian languages in New Zealand. At least I don't think so.--^talk 14:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I meant the cutlers in the Chennai picture. With any given Kiwi or Melburnian here, English may be expected to work unless they don't wish to understand you. Be well, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In moderation

I'm enjoying your recent spurts of moderation. Please keep up the good work and please take my first born as a prize. ADK^{...I'll hear your oven!} 02:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

And you may have my cattle and use my wife. Ace^{of Spades} 02:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You shall have my bow. Blue (pester) 03:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

And my axe. Тy^talk 03:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

What if I want to use your cattle, instead? I've seen the way they look at me... coyly chewing their cud, twitching their tails...--^talk 02:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you can use my cattle. but if you get one pregnant you're marrying it. Ace^{of Spades} 02:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess we'd be serving chicken or fish at the wedding.--^talk 02:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Or Soylent Green. Ace^{of Spades} 02:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds awfully kinky. ADK^{...I'll analyse your goat!} 12:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

math math gobble gobble gee math math

If we define the wave equation as

$i\hbar {\frac {\partial \psi }{\partial t}}=-{\frac {\hbar ^{2}}{2m}}\nabla ^{2}\psi -V\psi$

then solutions will be of the form $\psi (\mathbf {r} ,t)$. However, given that such a function will vary only with the distance from the origin, it can be better defined in spherical coordinates, so we can redefine the Laplacian, which is Cartesian coordinates is

$\mathbf {\nabla } ^{2}f={\frac {\partial ^{2}f}{\partial x^{2}}}+{\frac {\partial ^{2}f}{\partial y^{2}}}+{\frac {\partial ^{2}f}{\partial z^{2}}}$

by using the substitutions $x=r\sin \theta \cos \phi ;\;y=r\sin \theta \sin \psi ;\;z=r\cos \theta$, which, with a bit of simplification, yields the final differential equation

${\frac {1}{r}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial r}}[r\psi ]+{\frac {1}{r^{2}}}\left\{{\frac {1}{\sin \theta }}{\frac {\partial }{\partial \theta }}\left[\sin \theta {\frac {\partial \psi }{\partial \theta }}\right]+{\frac {1}{\sin ^{2}\theta }}{\frac {\partial ^{2}\psi }{\partial \phi ^{2}}}\right\}=-{\frac {2m}{\hbar }}\left(E+{\frac {e^{2}}{r}}\right)\psi$

Feel inadequate yet? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I literally cannot even read that stuff. I am illiterate in math.--00:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoever threw Latin and Greek in the mixer clean that up right now! Or no dinner!--★uːʤɱ netlabelist 00:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh look, it's homework from 2 years ago! Тy^talk 00:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Good work.

Great work on your attempts to regularise our use of user talk pages.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Blue (pester) 09:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! Yeah I'm chugging along, hoping to get it sorted once and for all.--^talk 10:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Regularise? ADK^{...I'll redeem your ninja!} 11:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, well .... yes. As in "bring into conformity with rules or principles or usage" or something like that. Do you think you could expand your question as it seems a tad cryptic.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I think I get you now. Yes, talk pages need to be a little less beyond the rules and anarchic. ADK^{...I'll rinse your salad fork!} 21:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You too?

Funny, there seem to be a lot of former libertarians on this site. I was something of a Reasonoid back in the day, which is why I still have something of an odd fascination with the movement. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I am still libertarian leaning - more classical liberal I suppose. Ace^ace 04:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of youth pass through a phase of one sort of absolutism or another as they work out their ideals and their application. I actually feel that there's a burgeoning movement that's roughly worked itself out as the Coffee Party in America - the liberal literati searching for a comfortable home in the modern age that has rendered successive labels into slurs - "liberal," "progressive," etc.--^talk 04:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I think that can be chalked down partly to the "wildly simplified worldview" AD mentioned. Most of our editors (and skeptics in general) are people who endlessly analyze concepts and ideas and do not accept an idea without thoroughly considering it first; this would make a simple world-view very attractive to them.

If you look at it from the standpoint of the Apollonian and Dionysian dichotomy, we are Apollonians trying to impose order on chaos. Strong rationalism did that for me before I learned to make peace with the chaos and leave the uncertainties to the Norns. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Coffee Party? Heh. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a similar conclusion in Nassim Taleb's Black Swan (I'll put another pound in the box for bringing it up). Essentially, he says apply the hardcore rationalism to important things, like what to do with a multi-million dollar investment, but feel free to be an idiot with the less important things in life and just embrace the chaos. I quite like that because endless over-analysis is so time wasting (of course, what counts as over analysis is subjective and different for everyone else). Contrast that to Yudkowsky, who seems to think (at least this is the feeling I get from him) that you can think your way out of being human and everything can and needs to be analyzed Rationally. ADK^{...I'll bless your rake!} 08:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I really admire Yudkowsky - I'll be frank, if the math wasn't so hard, I'd probably be Bayesin' all over the place. It's kind of embarrassing, actually - I'm really used to mastering new things like that, but I have done almost no math for ten years, almost pathologically depending on calculators, and I somehow lost the knack for it. About every other month I tackle one remedial aspect or another, and I hope to one day be able to seriously approach the method of rationality used on LessWrong with a full grasp of the matter. For all the weird, cultish aspects of LW, some of the articles are quite accurate and intelligent - humans really do have some preprogrammed deficiencies in logic and reasoning, and being aware of those does help surpass them.

I also think there's a lot to be said for embracing the chaos, though - mostly because reasoning through everything is simply exhausting. That sounds weird writing it like that, but it's a plain fact that it uses a lot of mental capital to build a worldview and apply it to everything, which is why most everyone uses shortcuts (i.e. the Decalogue). I seriously and earnestly try to derive principles for a lot of stuff to use on a daily basis, thus not eating meat, and only work through everything for serious when it comes to big one-off decisions like adoption.--^talk 09:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Put it this way: over analysis like that is like trying to judge when to cross a road with a laser speedometer, a calculator and a meter ruler to judge how long it will take a car to reach you given its velocity, acceleration and distance and whether you can cross in time... and then 'getting knocked over anyway because you forgot to look in the other direction. It is perfectly fine to have a gut instinct for certain things because that's what separates us from machines and is what causes us to simply look both ways crossing a road rather than getting out the calculator and getting hit. ADK^{...I'll absorb your air conditioner!} 09:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There ought to be a RW article on "Appropriate uses of rationality" or "Head/gut cooperation" or some such essay on the balance between cerebral matters and swinging on the vines of life. Sprocket J Cogswell 16:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase Barry Schwartz, sometimes you need to know when to just say "Fuck it." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Odd question

Sorry, not sure who else I can ask so I thought you might be able to help. Basically I was wondering if there's any way of creating a strong vegetarian "fish stock", i.e. something that tastes of dark lobster / crab meat but is suitable for veggies? I'm basically thinking of making "vegetarian caviar" by creating a salty strong fish-tasting stock and then spherificating it using sodium alginate and calcium gluconolacate. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you including fishetarians in "veggie"? If so that stock is easily made after saving bodies and shells from a few nice meals in the freezer. Make a regular stock or supplement a veg/mushroom stock then put it on the lowest burner you've got, or even with most of the pot off the burner, to evaporate off enough liquid until you've got the strength you want. This will greatly concentrate salt as well as flavor, so season at the end. If the consistency is too thin you can add a dollop of gelatin but I gather that's the point of your spherification. You can change opacity and consistency by slowly dripping in heavy cream. I think corn starch or arrowroot would just make it shiny and slick. And yes I feel like a dick intruding but I've made this stock concentrated down and frozen in jam jars so I can spoon it out to be diluted as needed. 15:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I initially thought of some kind of fake caviar, using stock like you describe, but then I thought about taking it one step further and making veggie caviar and wondered if it's possible, as I don't think konbu would produce an intense enough flavour. I like the idea of thickening up the stock with something like arrowroot or gelatine (for the non-veggie option), and if I made the sodium alginate bath a darker colour than the stock it would look a lot like beluga caviar. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Just this AM I was hanging around kitchen with her indoors, and asked what the reddish-brown stuff was in cup on table. Seems her intuition told her to mix roughly equal parts of red miso and tomato paste. Not at all gelatinous, but it did a nice job of beaning up the rice and adding some colourful saltiness to it. </intrusion> Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Crundy - I wish I could help you out, but I haven't the faintest. Not something I've ever done. My wife makes veggie stock. Let me know if you figure it out... Cogswell's way sounds tasty!--^talk 20:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

AD

Have you always had as your sig? I'm sure it wasn't like that a few days ago... ADK^{...I'll yank your drain cleaner!} 19:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I just uploaded a new version of it. Previously it was a more grayish version that I had scanned from my handwritten initials.--^talk 22:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That was dense of me, I looked at the upload date (and the fossil records of the subpages) but somehow missed the previous versions... I'm sure I looked at that part of the page, though. Old age seems to be killing me. ADK^{...I'll deport your cow!} 22:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously

I always agreed with you about the community decision being binding and as a mod I did my best to try reign in Human about it. But I am also at a loss. Ace^ace 04:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

YOu're trying to herd cats. People came here, ages ago, cause it was a draw to intellecual and wacky types. those types will always rebel, cause that is what this place was originally about. in some strange way "rebelling" against CP. thsoe same people (and frankly, nerds on teh net in general) are types that like to be independent. Trolling for some becomes an art, supporting trolls then becomes the game, and "ticking off the man" becomes the play. and you cannot change it, unless you hire a bunch of Ken types to patrol everything said or done at teh wiki. And sadly, you will always fail to try to gain control, cause control is the very spark to these behaviors. --En attendant Godot 05:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Human's bullshit is obvious and silly. Just roll your eyes, revert it, and get away from the drama. Don't ADD to it, man!

I thought you did great those first few weeks when you were really trying, by the way. You cut through wikilawyering like that nonsense.--^talk 05:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I could keep it up but I discovered my dangly bits recently. Ace^ace 05:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha I like imagery. I been watching That Mitchell and Webb Look and I think it's creeping into my talk.--^talk 05:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Mod or not I'll always cut through the bullshit. You can be sure of that...I just occasionally can't help but add a little of my own now and then. Ace^ace 05:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Serious question, AD. if you know it's stupid, why revert it and egg him on? why not just "roll your eyes". I guess that's what all my post are trying to get at. YOu all said you "tried ignoring the behaviors" a few months back, but you never really actually ignored any of this game playing, you bout into it, made pages and pages of topics out of it. If you revert, human will get pissy and revert. but if you just let it go, almost no one will even see it. I saw it, cause it became a 10 post long edit war. I know you are trying hard, but can't you see that in trying to control it, you make it worse?En attendant Godot 05:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC) (edit con)

True, a number of people are being overzealous on this point; never mind edit-warring, they are cooping Human over what is probably not even a breach of the Community Standards. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Gotta say. Rather than shoot back with the rules-based answer, I'm hoping AD sits on his hands for a moment and questions how tightly he strapped his prudence on this morning. Sharp elbows are not helping things with this "community". 05:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, WfG, I didn't revert Ace. I reverted Human because I thought it was immature and an obvious attempt to avoid a community vote he didn't like. With Ace, I paused and asked him why he did it. I tried to explain my side, and why I felt that I was unfairly being put into a position where I either have to just pretend a vote didn't happen or enforce it in a silly Grinchlike way that I get no satisfaction from. I didn't actually roll my eyes, but neither did I revert.

Of course I see that this is causing drama of itself. I guess any attempt to enforce a rule is going to cause drama. But at some point, it seems to me like RW agreed that there were some rules dictated by votes. And I just don't see the alternative, particularly when there's a hot edit war going on between Nx and Human over it. I can't sit back and wait quietly, then undo it the next day. I can't tell Nx to stop, because he's just enforcing a community vote. So my only alternative was to tell Human to stop by reverting his edit myself.

What would you do? Just wait for the edit war between Human and Nx to end, maybe after the fifteenth or sixteenth edit or whatever? That doesn't seem like moderating, since we're supposed to cut them short and prevent such nonsense. Would you intervene with Nx and try to make him stop, when he's the one in the right? If didn't stop, would you block him?

I'm honestly curious. What would you do?--^talk 05:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

AD, you won't like my answer, cause you'll say it's "ineffective", but i would simply ignore children like that. I wouldn't revert, or ban, but i would see if i could find a script that would make sure edits by (unmentioned people) never made it to the "recently changed" list, so you'd have to go out of your way to see it. When I'm in an edit war, about a serious topic, i tend to just back the fuck down, reread, and come back later with an alternative that gets everyone's point across, then watch what happens over time. But I don't take on the person I'm edit waring with - i just talk to them, and if they aren't really talking back, i walk away and come back later.

You'll say that doesn't work. and maybe it doesn't, but for me, I always go back to the question of "what is the real goal here" (at the wiki, or with banning a user, etc). who are the players and why do they care. And at the core of all that, it's usually just "someone doesn't like someone else". My style likely won't win me president of the US. :-) I know you fell put upon tonite, and that's not fair of any of us to single you out, it was just your talk page that became the home. I don't mean to single you out. i'm frustrated with policy. so are you. for very different reasons. but it still makes for disfunction. Have a good night, AD, Ace, Nutty, and who ever else i've missed in this mess. :-)En attendant Godot 05:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So you'd stop an edit war over these comments by instituting a script to remove the comments from Recent Changes? That seems kind of, um, unilateral, especially since that was an option in the vote over those comments and it was overwhelmingly disfavored. It was actually the original proposal, but after the option to just disallow troll sanctuaries got fifteen votes to its two or three, everyone just switched over to the latter. I'm not sure it's a good idea to take it on yourself to overrule a community vote.

I do honestly appreciate your position, and I think that it's great to step back and return when things are cooler. Tempers get hot in discussions like this. Likewise, it's true that the actual goals are also important. But I think procedure is also important, as ignoble as it may seem. If a user is allowed to just flout a vote because they think they have a better idea of the goals involved, then votes really just don't matter. And when your job is to try to head off edit wars and HCM, then it's not a good thing to leave and come back later.

So yeah... good night, anyway. If it's worth anything, I'm not angry or upset, and I certainly don't hold anything against you. I just want you to see my position, and how I didn't feel that doing nothing to stop the edit war was an option.--^talk 05:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Just take the easy way out and...ban everybody! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Best solution i've heard in months. :-) En attendant Godot 05:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Bluh

Dear deity-or-lack-thereof, you've been pushed into being the piñata for anyone who has a concern about rules. At least in May there were more people to take issue with on this stuff. You've been doing an admirable job. Buena suerte... Blue (pester) 05:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it's not much of anything, really. I appreciate the support, though.--^talk 05:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitly thanks for that, AD. --★uːʤɱ atheist 05:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

U r my hero

Keep fighting the good fight. Hold Human accountable. Hold Ace accountable. Hold Maratrean accountable. Hold me accountable. I am so very glad you are a moderator. And don't worry, you're not taking too much shit for being Lord Rulesy Law. At least not as much as, say, me. Seriously, thank you.--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that Brxbrx is an awful scum-sucking leech with shit for brains. Ace^ace 21:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You'd think a leech that sucks scum would be a good thing!--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What ever you say. Ace^ace 22:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well you want less scum, don't you?--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I am looking through all possible solutions.--^talk 06:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So, do we kill all the users or not? I mean, we could run it through the computer to see... ADK^{...I'll stride your demon!} 12:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's the only humane way of solving our problems. Blue (pester) 12:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Pibot and other bots can rule RationalWiki much better than us!--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Fuck off

Now. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

gibberish

Did you see the rugby last night? I thought the opening ceremony was done well. Ace^ace 23:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw some of that haka thing, which was cool. Most of the rest of the game I was at a meeting of the local Society for Atheists, Rationalists, and Skeptics. I keep vowing to get into rugby, though, so I'm going to watch the game tonight--^talk 23:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

What the hell is going on with the kickers in the games this year? Does new zealand have some weird magnetic field that interferes with the signals between a player's foot and their brain? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I just want to know how these dudes manage to have calves the size of my head.--^talk 01:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Llama Song

Weep. Blue (pester) 01:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU---User:Brxbrx/sig 01:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

LLAMA SONG NOBODY FUCKING EDIT CONFLICT ME

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMYN4djSq7o--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Llamas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbPDKHXWlLQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZUPCB9533Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpjyH-LkEAg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49j6_uk0g3k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJixW2u4IvQ

Llamas. 01:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)