Difference between revisions of "RationalWiki:Saloon bar"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Wheeee)
m (Wheeee)
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 450: Line 450:
 
:::::::::::::::Your comment is correct. However, Microsoft Windows is used by more then 90% of personal computer users, which means that Windows works for most people. Since Windows works for far more people then linux or osk, then that basically proves that Windows is a better OS.
 
:::::::::::::::Your comment is correct. However, Microsoft Windows is used by more then 90% of personal computer users, which means that Windows works for most people. Since Windows works for far more people then linux or osk, then that basically proves that Windows is a better OS.
 
::::::::::::::::Sure about that?  In my experience, it means 90% of people don't care what their OS is, and use whatever comes on it..  And that 90% of users bitch about their computer, not knowing there's even other options..  {{User:Quaru/sig}} 01:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 
::::::::::::::::Sure about that?  In my experience, it means 90% of people don't care what their OS is, and use whatever comes on it..  And that 90% of users bitch about their computer, not knowing there's even other options..  {{User:Quaru/sig}} 01:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::::::::::::What the heck?  I spend a half hour writing my rant, only to find that everyone's all hunky-dory now?  Crap.  {{User:Radioactive afikomen/sig}} 01:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::::::You're absolutely right:  Windows ''does'' suck.  Gigantic donkey balls.  It's user interface is inconsistent (the new Aero theme is nice but only skin-deep; the deeper you dig into the system options, the more the UI regresses to Windows 95-standards).  Programs are allowed to do whatever they want with your system once you hit "install", and to make things worse, uninstalling the program still leaves behind unacceptable amounts of detritus from the program.  The Windows Registry is opaque and unusable to the layperson.  It was plagued for a long time by major security issues (older versions had no firewall and left all ports open by default) and still is (it still has holes in it's memory protection (whatever the term for it is, can't be bothered to look it up)).  Also, pre-Vista, the graphics drivers sucked—hence the notorious [http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/R/235755/original/XP_wm_paint.jpg blurring windows] effect.  If I took the time, I would be able to find even more problems. 
 +
:::::::::::And despite all of that, it's ''still'' a better desktop OS than Linux (servers and firmware are another matter entirely).
 +
:::::::::::By the way—these are actual, specific problems, and not "Windows fried my friend's computer".  Windows is on 85%+ of desktop computers right now—that's many, many, ''many'' millions of PCs.  Shit is bound to happen.  But for the most part, it's good enough—it kind of has to be, for Microsoft to succeed in the long term (which it has been).  If Windows is as cripplingly bad as you believe it is, then way, way fewer people would use it.  (Recall if you will the last genuinely shitty Microsoft OS, Windows ME, which was critically panned and generally unpopular.)
 +
:::::::::::Compare this to say, desktop Linux, which, ''at its best'', is a less stable, slightly uglier version of OS X with less software support, made worse by the albatross that is the notoriously fanatical, abrasive, and toxic GNU/Linux community.  {{User:Radioactive afikomen/sig}} 01:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::::::Now, I challenge you to name at least a half-dozen specific problems that desktop Linux has.  You aren't a true nerd if you can't critique the hell out of the things you love.  {{User:Radioactive afikomen/sig}} 01:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  
 
== I f*** hate english language ==
 
== I f*** hate english language ==

Revision as of 01:28, 13 August 2010


Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

Welcome BoN
This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Laughing.gif Puke.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Icon beer yellow.gif

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

To do list

RSS extension

Moved to RationalWiki:Technical support

Appointed Trustees and foundation updates (important) (Sticky)

(please to unsticky when this is history ħumanUser talk:Human 07:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC) )

As has been discussed in multiple locations we will soon be taking an important step with the formation of a non-profit corporation to manage RW. Everything is slated to begin the first week of August. There will be a period of 3-4 months as we transition ownership, and work on establishing all the little elements needed for the foundation to function.

The work will be done by myself and 2 appointed trustees that will make up the initial board. The goal will be to have elections for the remaining trustee positions in January 2011. There is a lot that has to be done in the mean time, and your feedback, support and encouragement is appreciated. My goal is to make the establishment, the transition, and ultimately the management of the foundation as open and accountable to the RW users as possible.

The appointed trustees for this period are Human and Armondikov. While the three of us are ultimately responsible for seeing this thing done and done properly any concerns, feedback, suggestions, or help that anyone wishes to give is great.

The rough outline for what is going to happen is as follows:

  • File papers of incorporation in NM (early August)
  • File papers with the IRS (early-mid August)
  • Approval of the by-laws (early-mid August)
  • Transition ownership of the domain, hardware and other physical and intellectual property from me to the foundation (late August)
  • Begin working out election of trustees, voting and nomination process, timelines, etc. (September/October)
  • Finalize election procedures for trustees (Hopefully by November)
  • Establishment of financial accounts for the foundation (Likely December as I will need to return to NM for a lot of it)
  • Hold our first election for trustees (January)
  • Hold our first full meeting of the board (January/February), where we establish general protocol for meetings, site management, etc.

Financial costs

None of this is free. Every document filed with the Secretary of State, the IRS, and state tax agencies has fees attached to them. Official copies of documents, notarization, and establishing legal ways to sign contracts electronically all have associated costs. I am prepared to foot whatever bill is necessary to see this through but if anyone has a few dollars they can afford to throw my way to help curtail the costs to myself personally I would be grateful. tmtoulouse 06:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an estimate of the overall cost, including personal esigs, etc.? ħumanUser talk:Human 07:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
On the order of $500-$600, which is why I am asking for assistance. tmtoulouse 07:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll dump some spare cash your way but you'll have to wait until October for anything substantial. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 10:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Hang on... if it costs this much, can we not go ahead with it "unofficially", as in do all the ground work and treat it "as if" it was real, and then incorporate properly when we A) have a need and B) have the cash? It can't cost anything to do it all "informally" and do the paper work further down the line, or am I missing something, like does the paperwork have to be done in order to share the physical responsibility such as potential lawsuits? Scarlet A.pngd hominem 10:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Having it all filed is what gives the shielding. It creates a new "person" in a legal sense to take on the burdens. So no. It has to be in existence for any of the benefits to work. If we're (say) sued, and then file, then it only shields us as of when it's created. And ~$600 is right. I just did all that crap last summer. The bonus is, most of it is relatively painless. (I made a for-profit corporation, but I assume most of the paper work is similar.) Quaru (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I figured as much. I was just wondering if we could run "as if" and then if someone filed against us, we'd run away and cry. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 10:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, sure. We could also shove broccoli in our ears and run through the streets naked. I just don't think it'd help the situation much. Quaru (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Could we keep the broccoli thing as possible future idea? It has promise. Thanks for the update. I'll do the PayPal thing early next month ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 12:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The largest cost is with the IRS, and that doesn't have to be done right away anyway. tmtoulouse 15:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Conditional donations

I'm considering offering donations for certain changes in the bylaws. To make any donation (to RationalWiki Foundation) the bylaws would have to be held by a government agency, and be legally enforceable. They must be public records which I could access. Is that possible? ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 17:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless we are talking the establishment of a very large endowment, I am not really interested in "conditional" donations. The idea behind donations is that you believe in the project, want to and can support it, and trust me and the other board members to manage it. So the quid pro quo thing is out the window. However, I can address your points regardless of monetary attachment to them. First, the New Mexico Secretary of State and the Public Regulation Commission are the governing body over incorporating in New Mexico. They specifically make a clause that states that they do not keep bylaws of corporations. However, once approve by the board the bylaws are legally binding, though changeable. A copy of the bylaws must be kept at our registered agent's office in New Mexico and available for review or copies by anyone. tmtoulouse 17:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
That will do.
I trust you wholeheartedly Trent...eeaaruum, although I must admit I sometimes wonder about your right-hand man. I'm hopefully kidding but (once you are gone) there doesn't seem to be any legal barrier to prevent three [two] Trustees from deciding to change the bylaws, to make themselves rulers for life. So the other two essential conditions for me would be that the voting procedures could only be changed by majority vote of the community (although the Trustees could have veto power) and the same thing with the RationalWiki Copyright, to ensure that the "right" to fork (as you call it), would not be quietly de-righted, as we sleep one night. ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 19:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The right to fork cannot be taken away. The licence for existing work cannot arbitrarily be changed. The Angband delicensing efforts are a nice example of how complicated that is. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 19:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I doubt anyone would try to make themselves "rulers for life". Not least because trying to find enough people among the type of person RW attacts to agree long enough to put together such a conspiracy and get elected as a Trustee is unlikely. If anything that stupid was tried, it's likely the community would vote with their feet, as most projects do when that sort of thing happens. Cf. the exodus from ScienceBlogs over giving Pepsi a blog. Still, these are hypothetical scenarios on par with aliens invading and proclaiming ownership of the site, what do you intend on amending the laws to to take that into account? Scarlet A.pngd hominem 20:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
If editors have to vote with their feet, the bylaws have failed (democratically). I'm suggesting writing them so that editors can vote with their vote. ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 20:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
An example of a change to the license would be, that it begin to specify how the work should be attributed (as is actually required by the Creative Commons license). Does the copied text have to be attributed to rationalwiki.org? Does every page that is copied have to be individually attributed to the page at rationalwiki.org? If the forked wiki is at a new domain, could they claim that they don't need to attribute anything to the rationalwiki.org because they have "moved" the wiki and the wiki at rationalwiki.org is no longer the "real" RationalWiki? ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 20:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Iteresting, but I agree with Arm. You're overthinking thus. If Trent goes insane then we just fork and make the attributions to the "official RW". based on how this works, and how I believe it will continue to work, what you describe is highly unlikely, and our bypass will become too complicTed if we try to cover every eventuality. Overly complex rules invite loopholes. Excuse my typing. iPhone browser is being odd, so I can't see what I write. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 20:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
there are copies of by-laws on the web. Its worth checking if you are required to include one to allow them to be changed. Getting that wrong could be a problem. How meetings are conducted should probably be specified in terms of what comprises a quorum and what vote wins , simple majority, unanimous etc. It may put trustee names into public record. Hamster (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Copies of what bylaws? Include one what? Trent said they have to make the bylaws publicly available but I don't see how any of it can be enforced against the Trustees if they can change anything at anytime!
"A quorum shall consist of a least the majority of Trustees."[1] "(1) Action required or permitted to be taken at a board of directors' meeting may be taken without a meeting if the action receives the affirmative vote of the majority of the board members."[2] ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 00:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not worried about Trent going crazy. We are talking about Trent handing over 'absolute control of this website, to the Trustees. They will never give it back. Everyone says, if they are bad, we will just leave. Sure you can leave, but why would you object to a proposal to allow you to vote instead of leave?!?!? You people confuse me. I don't really think the problem is that it is "complicated"... ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 00:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Gawd you are so confused. The first motion I will be introducing will be to add a section describing a recall/impeachment process. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Ooow that was something I was gonna stick money in your g-string for. But in the year 8323 the Board could just erase it for some good reason. Please unconfuse me further, if possible. ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 01:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The scenarios you are describing seem to situations were good will and amicable agreements are no longer possible and the environment on and off the wiki are so toxic that there is no possible reconcilable option. In which case we might as well pack it in because even if we can find away through the place will be dead any way. - π 12:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Conservapedia isn't "dead" but it seems it fails democratically. ~ Lumenos 12:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm considering offering donations for certain changes in the bylaws. I will double what ever Lumenos offers in exchange for a bylaw saying he may not participate in this process. - π 23:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll give 50 dollars if Pi posts a recording of him singing You are my sunshine. I also support his motion. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 00:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Once heard, it can not be unheard. It would be like the audio equivalent of two girls, one cup. - π 00:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Thirding Pi's motion. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
After the two girls, one cup reference I'd rather that we didn't have any more motions.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Be careful what you wish for, you may get the opposite. Perhaps this is why the reference was made. You know I'm supposedly responsible for all this. ~ Lumenos 05:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that this section has an amusing header, RW did once take a "slightly" conditional donation. It resulted in the creation of the most dead-in-the-water thing we ever built here. All details suppressed to protect the privacy of the donor and the clumsy acolytes who built it. No one came. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Do I remember that? Scarlet A.pngd hominem 10:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

For RationalWikiWiki

Pardon me. I just need to put this here so that I will have a source for the article on me at RationalWikiWiki.

Lumenos contends that: Trustees would seem to have the power to name bureaucrats and settle their disputes. The bylaws seem to include nothing to prevent Trustees from making themselves absolute rulers of the domain names rationalwiki.org, rationalwiki.com, rationalwiki.net. They could take away the "right to fork" and if RationalWikian's move content they created to a new domain name (without consent of all who have edited their articles after the copyright changes have been made) the new host may be convinced to take down the wiki or the new wiki could be vulnerable to a lawsuit, AFAIK. ~ Lunemowse 21:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The right to fork cannot be taken away. You cannot retroactively change the copyright of the material on this wiki to prevent reuse. That is guaranteed by the license. -- Nx / talk 14:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say retroactively.
To move an entire wiki, you would need to know how to backup the most recent version before the date of a copyright change, unless you happen to make a backup before many changes were made at the original wiki location.
BTW the main falsehood in the RWW article about me, is that they claim I am opposed to the formation of the RationalWiki Foundation. I think it should be a democratizing move, but remember that Hitler was elected and prior to that time Germany was at the height of Western culture, with functioning democratic systems (according to Chomsky). ~ Lumenos 21:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
That's interesting, apparently I'm too biased to write about what my opinion is. Theemperor refers to this as "whitewashing" but perhaps that is only because he is trying to defend the rule. (21:46, 26 July 2010 Theemperor (Talk | contribs) blocked Lumenos (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 hour (account creation disabled) ‎ (RationalWikian whitewashing own article: What bit about "Don't edit your article" is not clear?[3]). ~ Lumenos 14:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Christianity in America...

...is becoming more and more secular. I bet CP isn't going to put this one on the main page. Statistic from this: 25% of Americans 18-25 are not affiliated with a religion, for one... Lyra § talk 08:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"...many people who call themselves Christian don't really believe, deep down, in the tenets of their faith." - an interesting explanation, one I've long thought true considering the rise of people looking to "prove" the Bible and this constant need for reassurance and validation amongst the most evangelical. Indeed, assuming the usual result of severe cognitive dissonance, it might seem very reasonable that the most evangelical people are the ones with the most shaken faith (that the most homophobic preachers often turn out to be gay may also fit this model). Scarlet A.pngd hominem 14:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. My impression is that what has been described as "The New Atheism" isn't really an organic movement in and of itself, but rather a reaction to "The New Fundamentalism" which is a more or less wholly unremarked movement. It's my opinion that the steep decline of mainstream Christianity, the modest increase in evangelical and "born again" type institutions and the accompanying wave of shallow fundamentalism (creationism, wrapping up god and country, etc.) is the last gasp of religion in the west. It's pretty much all over for Christianity now. Notionally a majority still believe, but they don't do the things necessary to infect the next generation like go to a church regularly or indoctrinate their kids. My prediction is that by 2060 or so, Christianity will be in minority in western Europe and heading that way in North America. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd love that to be the case, but, given that humans remain apes with pretensions whose genes think they're on the African savannah, I'm not inclined to be that optimistic. Perhaps Christianity will go away (though I really doubt it), but if it did then something just as stupid would spring up - David Gerard (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
While I partially agree that extreme evangelism is one of the death throes of organized religion, I don't think it's the end of belief itself. After all, we're looking at "non-religious" being a fast growing position, not atheism being a fast growing sector (although difference is difficult to detect in polls as it greatly depends on the wording, which is never consistent). I would also never put a date on it ending. It might get replaced by something else, but religion isn't just going to die like that, that's just not how it works because if it was, it would have died by now. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 18:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It is a paradox but by not having an established church I believe that the USA has encouraged religion. In the UK our muddled CofE has had a de facto monoply on religion for nearly 500 years, this has led to complacency. In the USA there is a highly competitive marketplace for religion. In addition with a high GDP and generous tax reliefs there is a strong economic incentive for people to take the religious route as a career (you wouldn't find any UK cleric with their own private jet or stretch limo). With the concept of tithing still in existance there is a strong economic impetus to keep religion going. Once recruited to a church you need to keep people frightened so that they do not stray, this is why the more authoritarian aspects of the Bible and the coming Rapture are pushed by the Evangelicals (albeit subconciously). Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 09:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
This semester my paper is "religion and current issues". The topic I have choosen is Christian Fundamentalism in the United States. There is much in the way of current research topics out there. AceX-102 09:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sinners

You're (probably) all sinners Hat tip. Aren't you? 16:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

They should've switched to a different backdrop for this particular article. Röstigraben (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't show anything to me (I'm on a phone) What is it? 17:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Oh...I see... Falldownlaugh.gif Scarlet A.pngd hominem 17:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Well I don't: Explain please! 17:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Their standard background graphic has a few stylized inkblots, which are easily misinterpreted in this context...let's blame Freud. Röstigraben (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Aah, I see (or rather I don't see). When Ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be told what it's really about. Thanx, I thinx. 17:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I think ostensibly they're blood splatters, but of course, we have the sexual maturity of 12 year olds here who see vaginas in all of the Rorschach tests. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 18:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
What do you expect, when Rorschach based all his test blots on vaginas - David Gerard (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Am I the only one who finds it a bit creepy that their "youth" website seems to be focused on nothing but sex? Not a single other f-ing interest. Sen (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Their model looks distinctly undernourished, and why does he have his hand in his pocket?
If you are using masturbation to medicate pain - is this some new woo, the placebo effect or a genuine medical breakthrough? I think we should be told because it could save the NHS millions. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 08:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Such a breakthrough would also encourage people to seek medical assistance. — Pietrow 16:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Say three Hail Marys and have a wank. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 09:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A theory

For a long time I have suspected that there is something wrong with the popularity of Rationalwiki. How can such a nerdy site with a logo of a wrinkled ass have so many users?! I took a closer look at edits made here and did some research and reached the conclusion that Rationalwiki has only two, maybe three users. One user is me, but all other "users" is actually one person with million sockpuppets. Well, maybe there is one more user who was similarly to me deluded into thinking that Rationalwiki has many editors, although it obviously hasn't.

This one user with million sockpuppets clearly has no life at all. I thought that maybe this nolifer has one true and honest user account and speculated who it might be - I think it's either Human or *YO N-DUZ NA NA NIIII* (look here).

The game is over: Human or *YO N-DUZ NA NA NIIII*, you can stop playing, I have exposed you. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Fuck. Rumbled. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 18:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
No one cares about you any more, Marcus. Let me help you. Open resolv.conf, find the line that starts "127.0.0.1" and add "rationalwiki.org" to the end of it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
And the award for most ironic post of the day goes to... the idiot who complains about socks while using one of his many socks! Lyra § talk 18:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
How many of you honestly think that I am Marcus? Because I most certainly am not. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello John, hope your brother is recovering well in a secure hospital somewhere. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 08:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Idiot #57:MarcusCicero::Wikinterpreter:Bohdan. And you recently called Marcus a "nice guy." Come on, now. Lyra § talk 08:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
So? He is sometimes funny. But do I go around all day saying "ahh, David has no social skills" or other such stuff? No, I simply write some pottery and that's all. I'm not Marcus. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Good to see another artist. I was about to go and glaze and bake some poetry. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 16:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Can I have fifty pounds to mend the shed? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 08:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Best. Wikipedia. Article. Ever.

Regulate (Song) Be sure to read the synopsis. --MJMelcher (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Classic. Quaruhybrid engine - You can't explain that! 14:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Cracked Presents 5 UFO Sightings That Even Non-Crazy People Find Creepy

http://www.cracked.com/article_18690_5-ufo-sightings-that-even-non-crazy-people-find-creepy.html You got to admit this stuff is just flipping weird.Ryantherebel (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If someone cares, there's a short thread about the Cracked list in the Bad Astronomy forum: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/106669-5-UFO-Sightings --ZooGuard (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, ZooGuard! I was curious what the actual explanations for those phenomena were. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It bugs me whenever Cracked does things like that. They have moments of greatness, which make me fall in love with them, and then they go and write crap like this, which even to a layperson obviously consists of cherry-picking a single favorable study. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's important to note that different articles on Cracked are written by different people, and some of those people are pathetic morons. --signed by an Oniontalk edits 20:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I know, I know, but it's still a real let down. The editors could take the opportunity to shape the site into something funny and smart, or they can let any old crud through if it's dressed up enough. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I remember reading somewhere that they often go through dry spells when their better writers either don't have anything to say or just can't be arsed, and so they put a lot of crap out. It might be gradually getting worse as the pool of good ideas slowly dwindles and we're left with lists that are just subjective opinions of authors or completely fabricated. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 20:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand David Wong is a poster over at JREF so there should be some pro sanity bias.Geni (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It's really hit or miss with cracked. The article I hated most was this stupid piece of sh*t. --GTac (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

P != NP

Pending peer review, but still --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 18:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it turns out he isn't a random engineer who thinks he has solved a massively complex problem that many editors see. So, it is possible, but I'll wait till the peer review process takes hold.--MJMelcher (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe I found out about this here and not on #esoteric. Ah, well. Word word Hoover! 21:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
This was the big story where I work today. - π 12:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

On School Prayer

Prayer in school.jpg

Inspired by a comment on RPGnet, done by me. No idea where the original picture is from. If anyone wants to burn a sock to post it on CP, be my guest. --Gulik (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The original is by a DeviantART stock artist called mjranum (original here). I recognised the background style as well as the rubber bones, which I've used before. I believe his rights are fairly lax providing there's credit. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 22:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Considering that upload rights are only granted to a privileged few, asking someone to kill sock for this seems a bit steep unless they were one of the Fab Five. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 08:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, right. And I guess it's not possible to link to images on other sites? (Tried doing that with this pic, but couldn't figure out how. Durr.) --Gulik (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hotlinking isn't embedded by default in MediaWiki, there might be an extension but I doubt CP will have it. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 20:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
You can only embed external images if they are hosted on Wikimedia Commons - just use the original filename and if it hasn't been uploaded here it will get it from commons. Not that this helps with the picture above. --Unsigned by someone who was too lazy to log in. 13:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Gods, 25% of Americans are still birthers

CNN Poll: Quarter doubt Obama was born in U.S.. What's slightly more depressing: Forty-two percent of those questioned say they have absolutely no doubts that the president was born in the U.S., while 29-percent say he "probably" was. Junggai (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That's about right really - since the US vote is split pretty much down the middle, this means about half of all Republicans are mad cwazy in de hed. Which is about what I'd have guessed. But where are all the likable, sensible Republicans these days? If half are bonkers, it should be very very simple for the smart, electable Republicans to point this out, but they're all just running totally terrified of pissing off this 'base'. The big question is can the cwazy ones overthrow the sensible ones in November? I do hope so, it could be most entertaining to watch. DogPMarmite Patrol 00:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The nuts always scream louder than the rational people. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 02:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The Republican Party has been taken over by it's lunatic fringe. It's the end result of letting talk radio build their base for two decades now. They have a very hard core, very loyal base, but it's a base that demands ideological purity. If the moderates question them, they'll get driven out.
Nixon, Ford and Bush the Elder would be driven out of today's Republicans. (The conservatives never like Ike, anyway.) The Barry Goldwater who ran for President in 1964 probably would be welcome, but not the retired Goldwater who didn't like the Religious Right one bit, and supported gays in the military (his philosophy was he didn't care if a soldier was straight, he just wanted them to shoot straight.)
Hell, they'd probably have issues with Reagan, if not drive him out just for supporting amnesty for illegal aliens. (To be fair, the hard core conservatives had their doubts about Reagan early on. He only became their idol later.)
I've got an essay on this topic in my head. One of these days, it will move from my head to my keyboard. MDB (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Good Bishop has Again Broken His Silence!

Or so I suspect. I'm sure many of you are familiar with the Sean Manchester drama, and his tendency to use sock puppets. Tonight (59 minutes ago to be precise) a youtube user named Prince Anton Voytek left this comment on one of my youtube videos about Manchester (the projection is hilarious):


"@scepticalpreacher

And some people are so full of themselves internally that they think they have the self-ordained duty to cast aspersions on someone else out of a jumped -up sense of superiority.

Grow up,and realize realize that there is a dark side,and this man fights it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT6664dldkA --Mustex (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

On another note, I checked his blog, and he's now at least updated it to show a pic of me from my youtube channel, and has stopped calling me an anonymous coward.--Mustex (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
You completely missed a golden opportunity to wear white makeüp and a cape and speak in a Transylvanian accent. Shame on you. Word word Hoover! 14:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Has he come to your house yet? Wielding a stake or otherwise. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 11:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be sure to wear some flowers in my hair...

San Francisco, anyone been there? If so were is a good place to stay cheepish and what is worth seeing? (I am trying to get tickets to the Niners v Raiders) - π 12:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been, but it's probably been over fifteen years since I was there last.
The most important thing I learned was the meaning of a quote from Mark Twain, "the coldest winter I ever spent was one summer in San Francisco." I was there in April or May, and I thought, "oh, it's sunny California; I won't need heavy clothes!"
Wrong.
I was at Fisherman's Wharf, and nearly froze. I had to buy a sweatshirt to take the ferry out to Alcatraz.
Fisherman's Wharf, as I remember, is fun, though very "touristy". Alcatraz is interesting, if you want to see an old prison, but it's a lot of walking. MDB (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
One my last international trip in I was watching a documentary on the way home (I didn't feel like watching Avatar on a 7 inch monitor) and the guy claimed that it is that cool breeze that comes in from the Pacific across the bay that actual prevents California from being a desert. - π 12:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I was there last year. Fisherman's Wharf was nice. Of course you'll have to ride the trolley, and I quite liked Chinatown. And maybe it's just me, but I really enjoyed the Golden Gate park, with the botanical gardens, Japanese tea garden and California academy of sciences. --GTac (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Last time I went, I stayed in Redwood City. Partially because I had business out at the university campus down mountain view way, but also because I think it's actually a deal more convenient for San Francisco proper. It's also cheaper. Basically, it's a short walk to the caltrain station then 30 mins on the train to get wherever you're going. Oh, and don't waste your money on the MOMA. It's shit :D Oh, and if you want to go to one of the other islands than Alcatraz in the bay, which are quite nice if you like that sort of thing, plan ahead. The ferries aren't very regular. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeh, San Fransisco has excellent public transport. Also, if you want to go to Alcatraz, I think you have to make a reservation in advance so don't forget to do that. --GTac (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
By the way, if you want a day trip out of the city, Old Sacramento is worth seeing. Again, very touristy but lots to do. Sacramento is about a two hour drive from SF. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. - π 13:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I spent a summer in Berkely. Smoked a lot of pot. Met a lot of hippies. Good times. 86.40.102.192 (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'd recommend staying away from the tourist quarters of the city and hit some of the parks. You'll find weed cookies very easily and meet a lot of interesting characters. 86.40.102.192 (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I am shocked, shocked to learn that illicit drugs are easily accessible in San Francisco. Why, next you'll be telling me that there are homosexuals there! MDB (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The best weed I ever smoked was in San Fran/Berkely. And I spent 3 weeks in Amsterdam. 86.40.102.192 (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I for one find it pretty pathetic to waste your vacation trip on drugs. And I've been a lot to Amsterdam. --GTac (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I was working on those occasions and not on 'vacation' (What a vile American English term - its 'holiday', you donut) Also, drugs is a great way to spend your time in either Amsterdam or San Francisco, the characters wouldn't be the same sober. 86.40.102.192 (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I found that a quick J added a certain je ne sais quoi to the Van Gogh museum, not to mention the canal cruise or hanging out in a market in Jordaan. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I found that the worst part of Amsterdam are the annoying drug tourists who think it's okay just to smoke weed wherever and bother people while stoned. I don't know wherever you're from, but just imagine that a bunch of tourists would visit your town to drink alcohol. Apparently it's a real big thing to them, and they spent all of their time drunk and bothering people. Hey, I like beer too, but it's kinda sad if it means that much to you. See where I'm coming from? --GTac (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I live in Blackpool where what tourists do is come and drink beer and bother people - we're one of the stag night hot-spots so I can see what you mean but I spent quite a bit of my time in Amsterdam and didn't bother anyone. Jack Hughes (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know how ESTA works?

Do I get one of these in place of a visa? - π 13:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also why do so many fake sites come up before the actual website on google? - π 13:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
If you live in a visa waiver country, then yes. Basically, it's like the visa waiver programme of old but with the all new paranoia. Just follow the instructions on the website, and you'll be branded a terrorist in no time and denied entry. :D --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Remember that the "correct" answer to "Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide?" is "No". I'm sure that one trips up plenty of terrorists. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that question went on to ask if you were a Nazi Party member between 1939 and 1945. So is it okay to travel to the US if you were a Nazi party member between 1933 and 1938? - π 23:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
But they don't ask you if you are now, or have ever been, a member of the communist party any more. Now is our time to strike, comrades. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Approved with in a minute. My favourite question was "Have you ever detained, retained or withheld custody of a child from a U.S. citizen granted custody of the child?" people obviously have more complex lives than mine. - π 23:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Smörgåsbord of woo

http://spiritspacemovie.com/ Enjoy. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 12:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Spiritual and Scientific Witches"

So, I was randomly browsing some of the internets out there when I came across this interesting site. As well as claiming to house "Spiritual and Scientific Witches" (whatever a Scientific Witch is), they seem to offer numerous services and products, including tarot readings. "I have been utilizing the power of the Tarot for over 15 years. The deck I use has been with me since I began my journey as a reader and spiritual counselor. Because of this, we have a very special intuitive bond. This gives me the most genuine and solid reading results". Quite. Dreaded Walrus t c 14:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A new experience.

Just coming out of wiki-break to rant about this. Just been attacked by a mastiff. Beast knocked me over and then got my right hand. Bit through the nail on one finger and broke the bone below. Also left me needing quite a few stitches in the rest of the hand. Socialist medicine saved it though. Would write long funny story but typing left handed is a real pain.--BobSpring is sprung! 22:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. At least you're okay, I suppose. Sorry to hear about that, though, Bob. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 22:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
This never would have happened if you posses a largely defensive weapon of gun, y'know. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 22:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
What Goonie said—at least you're okay. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Shit man, lets kill the fucking thing! Hope you're OK. I also had a new experience in that I let a giant Indonesian Fruit Bat link cranberry sauce from my genitals. AceX-102 22:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Shit Bob that's scary stuff. Glad to hear you made it out mostly unscathed. On the upside you now have an excuse to eat pills and drink similar to what I've been using for the better part of a decade. Welcome? ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 22:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Pills and an excuse not to do housework and be coddled by loved ones. You sir, are a lucky bastard. AceX-102 22:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
When I read "then got my right hand" I grimaced, since I thought you meant he'd gotten it away from you and was gnawing on it. So discovering he just broke a bone and cut it some was actually a relief.--ADtalkModerator 23:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
But if he had lost his right hand, it would've made a great story. Years from now he could've been telling his grandkids, "Did I ever tell you about the time a dog ran off with my hand?" Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
And everyone could make funny jokes like "Do you want a hand, Bob?" and "You gotta hand it to that dog!" also "A show of hand for the latest Loya Jirga decision" and so forth. Ho ho ho. AceX-102 02:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
One of those things I guess. Police involved. More visits to doctors today and tomorrow. Could have been worse. No tendons cut. The thing had me on my back on the ground! but after taking an interest in my hand it sort of backed off. Then people were attracted to my (desperate) cries for help.--BobSpring is sprung! 05:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
That's pretty hectic, Bob. Glad your OK and still have ya digits. I got bitten in the head by a dog when I was young and have been wary of them since. Not to mention my experiences with horses. AceX-102 05:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This is one of the times when being married a nurse is a distinct advantage.--BobSpring is sprung! 06:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Bob, I'd be interested to know if you followed up any of the advice when you had a previous run in with the mastiff (I assume it's the same one). And being married to a nurse does hav its advantages, a friend of mine walked through a glass door at home and sliced off part of his chest as well as severely cutting one wrist, luckily his nurse partner was at home at the time. Lots of nasty scarring but ultimately still alive.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Bob, if you supported school prayer, this would never happened in the first place. Deny this and lose all credibility! Scarlet A.pngd hominem 12:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
As suggested above the "largely defensive weapon of gun" might have been the most useful. It's the same mastiff - or rather the same three. The hole had been blocked and I wasn't walking with my dog. But they had another hole and the most vicious one attacked me instead.--BobSpring is sprung! 16:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Nasty. Hope the police are recommending the largely defensive weapon of sodium pentobarbitone. --Robledo (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I remember you writing about those mutts months ago. I'm glad you're alright buddy. A dog once barked at me, so I know exactly how you feel. SJ Debaser 17:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well this just keeps getting better. Spend last night and all day today in hospital. Infection from the bite is doing bad things to my hand and arm. Hope to get out soon. And I had a hell of a job getting an internet connection--BobSpring is sprung! 18:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC).

The Rebellion needs You!

For all those who are fans of the I.M.P.S. (and you know who you are you dirty buggers) Time Magazine is holding a poll of the best ever Star Wars Fan Films. It's a YouTube thingy so be prepared to support the dark Empire Google, but if you are willing to do that go here to post the name of your favorite Star Wars Fan Flick.

This nerd broadcastTM will end in 3……2……1……0.5……0.25……0.125…--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 23:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd have to say The Wrath of Khan. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 11:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
4... 2... 1... 0.5... surely. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 12:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Mathematically accurate, would kill the joke.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 15:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So how long has RW been gaming Conservapedia?

Ok, so I found Conservapedia about 2 years ago, regularly started following their news just over 1 year ago and getting into the Diffs and Recent Changes soon after. Then I found RationalWiki and stopped doing all the work myself (Thanks guys)! So over that time I built up my own view of the madness that is Assfly, his gang and Conservapedia but never really stopped to think about how organised some of the vandals are. With some of the stuff I see going by about major accounts and moles it's completely thrown my view out the window.

So I was wondering just quite how long have you guys been gaming Conservapedia, rather than just watching, logging and commenting on the crazy? Aslate (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Terry Koeckritz! Yes, our major vandal accounts are "Aschlafly", "TK", and "Conservative" and they've been going from the start. You would be shocked how many people think they're serious! TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The first great pwn-by-character-sock was pre-RW in March 07, so it's all Richard's fault. --Robledo (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been at it for way too long. Can't talk about which accounts--wouldn't want to get them banned. I did have some fun with the "Barack HUSSEIN!!@!!@!!1scarynegro!!! Obama" article, though. --Gulik (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I actually have a secret vandal account at CP. *blushing * --Idiot number 59 (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, IN59, I promised I would tell nobody that you're JPatt, so your secret is safe with me. --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The secret forum for organising vandal attacks and destroying Conservapedia can be found here. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 12:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Boorrrrringgg.....

It seems to me that nothing interesting happens here. Where is the drama? Where are the tears? Just give me reason, give me inspiration to write more poems. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

My smokin' hot Lativian Facebook friend complained about being bored. I sent her this and it cheered her up immensely. Hopefully it will do the same for you. --PsyGremlinFale! 11:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Never mind the youtube, send me a smokin' hot latvian facebook friend. --Opcn (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Pointless fact of the day: King Louie wasn't in the original Rudyard Kipling The Jungle Book, thus Cub Scouts don't have him as a nickname for their leaders (Akela), despite them often using the Disney versions of the characters as unofficial logos/images. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 12:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. Kipling never struck me as a fan of swing music. --PsyGremlinSermā! 12:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I got my Mac back

My defective Mac has been repaired.

It "only" cost me a little over $400. It was the video card that failed, and they only charged me for the replacement card; they didn't charge me labor costs, which would have been another $120 or so. MDB (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That seems damn expensive for a video card, even if it is a laptop video card... --GTac (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It's Mac hardware; it's expensive because it's designed to fail the day after the warranty expires. Word word Hoover! 13:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey! It was a full six months after the warranty expired! MDB (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It's an iMac, not a laptop. I'd say the cost is due to it being designed to fit into the monitor itself, since the the computer and the monitor are one and the same.
Anyway, I was kind of over a barrel. I'm completely non-mechanical and I doubt I could insert a video card into an iMac. MDB (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
If you'd bought a Dell, it wouldn't have cost you a penny for parts or labour. If you'd placed your order right, they even send a nice man round to your house to fix it. Let this be a lesson to you. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I spend enough time in Windows at work, thank you very much. But I no longer curse the day Bill Gates was born. I curse the day his parents met. MDB (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
PC =/= Windows. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 19:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This is true, but judging by his fascination by OSX, neither Linux, or BSD, or... etc will do the trick. And since it's a pain to get OSX on a Dell, a Mac is probably the way to go. For what it's worth, I'm typing this on my MacBook, and my desktop runs Linux. So I also hate Windows. I have moved all the way to life first forming being the day I dread. as it eventually led to Bill Gates being born. I win. Quaruhybrid engine - You can't explain that! 12:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Retarded Teabaggers

Third post down - things they have learned after 53 pages of discussion. The OP is pretty shocking as well - "Are Buddhists and Hindus Muslims?" They wonder about Sikhs as well. EddyP (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

... As opposed to "well educated, intelligent teabaggers?" I missed that memo. And of course Hindus and Buddhists are Mulsin.. Look at their skin color! Darky Terrorists, all of them. Quaruhybrid engine - You can't explain that! 13:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it shows more of an ignorance for the outside world than genuine stupidity. Knowing about Sheiks and Buddhists is that nasty liberal multi-culturism / worldview stuff, that they're so terrified of. Still, it's sad to see so much stupid on display. Even if you only read the paper, you should know the difference between Muslims, Buddhists and Sheiks. Oh, and "there are no moderate Muslims." Yeah, that's going to win you plenty of friends. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Psy, it's Sikhs (adherents to Sikhism) rather than Sheiks (Arabic princes). Word word Hoover! 13:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Damnit! Blown my deep cover! Ok, I confess, I'm a tea partier, cleverly disguised as somebody intelligent. (Actually, it was an epic fail on the part of me and Firefox's spell check :) --PsyGremlinZungumza! 13:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Looked at the last page (60). It starts with a comparison of Muslims to rattlesnakes. Had to look again at the URL to make sure I hadn't accidentally went to Stormfront.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
XD On page 60 someone talks about how the Australians are standing up to muslims by making them learn "Australian". EddyP (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I refuse to believe that is real... Scarlet A.pngd hominem 15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It is. It's an off-shoot of the Tea Party Patriots forum - the creator was legit, but was banned (my sock got into a few arguments with him) and most of the other members left the main forum or were banned after the main forum prohibited discussions of religion (including Islam/terrorism and the NY mosque). EddyP (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Wait... now I know conservative lurve teh banahmmer... but they blocked the creator??? Brilliant! Bad news for TK tho, that means he's already been upstaged. Good to know there's enough nutty to go round. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Why did they ban discussion of religion? Was it demonstrating that the Tea Baggers really are a bunch of bigots? MDB (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Cry.gif Scarlet A.pngd hominem 16:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Psy - I mean that the creator of the off-shot was banned from the main. MDB - there was some rather volatile discussions going on - one, 'Tenneseeans fighting to stop muslims' had over 400 posts. EddyP (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah! Told you I was having a dim day. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 16:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking Warn mankind

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100809/world/science_space_hawking this shit is scary Waronstupidity (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If we want to survive we must leave Earth and avoid contact with Alien at all cost.Waronstupidity (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not really "scary"; none of this stuff is short-term. Any alien "invasions" (read: big rocks going at 0.99c) will probably be centuries down the line, and the rest is just what we knew already: people will kill each other given half the chance, so don't give it to them. Word word Hoover! 14:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I think Hawking is slightly pessimistic on that front. I think it might be counter productive to outright assume aliens would be dangerous, he's mostly basing it on evidence from human culture; crusades and colonisation for instance. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 14:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Comparing it to the crusades shows a complete lack of understanding of the logistics of interstellar warfare. To even throw a big rock at 0.9c at some planet in a system 100 ly away requires a phenomenal amount of time, effort, computational power, giant freaking space cannons and knowledge of orbital dynamics, all to no particular gain. The crusades were decidedly simpler. Word word Hoover! 14:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
According to Phil Plait (or at least Death from the Skies), the most likely invasion scenario is von Neuman probes set to "kill everything". BTW, anyone else here been pwned by a Slylandro Probe? :) --ZooGuard (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I forgot about VnPs. But they wouldn't be used against a specific target; they're an indiscriminate weapon. Any species xenocidally insane enough to use them would probably do it regardless of whether they detected other civilisations or not. Word word Hoover! 14:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not just any bandages...

So I was spending my time with my cousins in Texas this weekend, and since the majority of them are girls, we naturally ended up going shopping. While in a random store that sold nifty things from all over the world (including three-legged piggy figurines from Chile that my mama wouldn't buy for me, since I left my wallet at home), I came across some bandages...that is, Jesus bandages. What I find interesting is that each tin came with a supposed collectible prize inside. I wonder what it was? Little wooden crosses? Jesus figurines? I dunno, but I think it's pretty odd, especially the fact that people have apparently actually bought them. ~SuperHamster Talk 17:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus bandages? Do they come in stigmata-size? MDB (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Buy two, get one free Jesus. Aw, but I wanted a free Bwian. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I see it's that nice Caucasian Jesus on their bandages. 17:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

iPhone Owners

We iPhone owners aren't just all smug hipsters fascinated with Steve Jobs' latest offering.

We also get laid more often. MDB (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This is of course so unreliable that it means nothing important. Though it is quite entertaining. The only proven association between technology and sex is that Linux users have it far less often. Word word Hoover! 17:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
No you don't. People who have their photos taken with iPhones report they have had more sexual partners. My personal theory is that, like the phones, the people look shiny but once you get to know them you can't keep 'em. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd imagine that there's fairly strong inverse correlation between iPhone owners and age (younger → more iPhones) while those with the brains to spot a con (i.e. older) will go for the (cheaper) Androids. Thus it's probably that the younger you are, the more likely you are to splash[sic] your sex on the web. 18:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
You all are just jealous because it has been scientifically proven that I'm getting more nookie than you. MDB (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I do know a guy who managed to pull every time (he was a Russel Brand-a-like who took fifteen minutes to squeeze into his skin-tight jeans every morning, incidentally) but one of his techniques was to pull out his iPhone, wait for the girl he was talking to to exclaim "wow an iPhone!!" (I should clarify that this was when they first came out) and then he'd scoff a little, put it back in his pocket and say "oh, yeah, I've just had it a few weeks...". Apparently this kind of blasé arrogance gets you a fuck-ton of pussy. Who knew? Scarlet A.pngd hominem 20:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got a serial killer!

Or maybe he buggered off. Not sure. Still, pretty cool. Local Coverage And by pretty cool, I mean, because I'm not black.. Quaruhybrid engine - You can't explain that! 17:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh.. I lied. It's no longer considered a racially motivated serial "slasher". More victims = 2 white guys added. Quaruhybrid engine - You can't explain that! 10:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
And busted. In Atlanta, trying to fly to Israel. What a pussy. Only stabbed 21, killed 5. No raping/eating of corpses, either.. How can we make a movie out of that? Quaruhybrid engine - You can't explain that! 13:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia night editing feature

Does anybody know how Conservapedia implements it in the MediaWiki software? I don't see an extension in cp:Special:Version that does it. I swear, swear I'm not trying to do anything naughty, I'm just curious. PhillipA (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know it's not called "night editing". I think it's done through "siteadmin" which according to Mediawiki allows locking and unlocking the database (which blocks all interactions with the web site except viewing). Deprecated by default. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 19:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
They just lock and unlock the database manually. It's not a special extension or anything automatic. They just call it "night mode" because they tend to switch it off late at night (US time) when nerds are more likely to be online and wanting to contribute to vandalise the site. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 20:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I think Night Mode and Siteadmin are different. Going by the "error messages" when you try View Source (when not logged in), it really seems to be a simple config file edit to take the "Edit pages (edit)" right away from the "Users" group. Maybe someone hacked together a small script to do it, but it doesn't seem to be any sort of fancy extension. --Sid (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Wait, who has night mode control now? If they haven't got a proper interface set up and it's activated through editing MediaWiki's PHP files, then it's a position of almost unbelievable power; you can run your own arbitrary code. Word word Hoover! 20:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I've got an implementation of night mode ready to go if anyone is interested in implementing it here. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
...why would anybody here wish to implement one of the most damaging things CP ever did to itself? *blinks* --Sid (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has suggested adding night mode here; we're talking about CP's implementation, which seems to be really stupid. I really can't see Andy having the intelligence to use an FTP client to access CP's server and then make the required changes to LocalSettings.php. Word word Hoover! 21:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Because Andy is not the site's administrator, CPWebmaster one of Andy's present/former students is. Looking at the graphs Larron made, it seems it use to be manual, but is now automated. - π 23:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Futurama

Thursday night's Futurama will focus on the evolution/creation battle.

Check out which noted deity appears at the end of the clip. MDB (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! I was pleasantly surprised when Futurama came back, and I'm glad it is actually going to take on issues this time. Tetronian you're clueless 17:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
They've already done a Proposition Eight episode, about Robosexual marriage. (It was, needless to say, an analogy...) MDB (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I do remember seeing a commercial for that one recently, but apparently I missed the episode. Ah well. Tetronian you're clueless 18:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Teacher: 1, Palin:0

Sarah is worse than Andy when it comes to facing criticism--Thanatos (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. She really is just plain thick isn't she? Scarlet A.pngd hominem 20:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
My theory is that the Republicans are constantly trying to prove the last Republican considered stupid wasn't really that stupid after all. People thought Ronald Reagan was stupid, so they gave us Dan Quayle. People thought Dan Quayle was stupid, so they gave us George W. Bush. People thought George W. Bush was stupid, so they gave us Sarah Palin. I'm scared to see who they'll come up with to make Saint Sarah of Wasilla look good. MDB (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Sharron Angle? Totnesmartin (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Bush actually had redeeming qualities and by most accounts - i.e., not the ones that Michael Moore cherry picked for Fahrenheit 9/11 - a mostly functioning brain. Palin on the other hand appears genuinely challenged. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 20:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It was like she instantly reverted to highschool. Palin should be doused in pigs blood at the prom. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Sarah Palin just seems to love publicity. Her hatred of criticism is what seems to have made her resign her position of Governor of Alaska. Palin just is stupid, I guess. I can't believe people actually want her to win the U.S. Presidency in 2012. She would probably resign after someone criticizes her attire at inaugration, after seeing her pitiful performance as Governor.--Moneyman (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Ben Quayle — Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.70 / talk / contribs
Did anyone see the poll at the bottom of the article? That was scarier than the video, in my opinion. Tetronian you're clueless 19:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Storyline

I like to write stories, but sadly I come up with far too many story lines to write them all. But, I thought a brief outline of this idea I came up with might amuse some of the people here: Ok, in alot of fiction lately its become popular to portray the devil as good, usually because he wants humans to have free will. Now, consider this: What if, secretly, the Devil was God's most loyal subject and, in a move somewhat similar to what Judas did in the Gospel of Judas, was ordered to betray him, wage war on him, and INTENTIONALLY LOSE AND BE DAMNED FOREVER just so that God would look good for winning. Now, imagine if he built his army with the rhetoric we now associate with a "good" version of the Devil: God is a tyrant, humans need free will, etc, but never actually believed any of it himself, but now you actually have legions of people and fallen angels who do, who he's planning to lead them to damnation in the final battle...now, imagine he impregnated a woman to make the anti-Christ, and he taught the anti-Christ the same thing. But, now imagine that the anti-Christ, being part angel, was able to get into heaven, and pretend to betray his father to the other Arch Angels (God not being present at the time), who believed that an anti-Christ turned to their side would be the ultimate weapon against the devil. But, it was all a trick, and he was able to kill all the Arch Angels when their backs were turned, and then open a portal between heaven and hell so that all the damned souls could storm heaven and rip God apart...and then Lucifer walks in. Just, imagine the look on his face.--Mustex (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd totally watch that movie. I Eat Glue (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
So why would Lucifer teach his son the wrong thing? And these are some pretty credulous angels to trust the son of the Enemy.--ADtalkModerator 02:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The alternative: Once your son is old enough to know who he is, tell him "I need you to help me fight a war against God for the purpose of making God look awesome. We're going to intentionally lose because God told us to, but we're still going to be damned for all eternity for it." So, basicaly the same reason he told that to everyone else. Because, otherwise no one would be insane enough to listen, his son included.--Mustex (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy and nutritionists vs. real science

Here's a good one. Enjoy the meal, RationalWiki! Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 04:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wheeee

I iz now running under Windows 7. Now to spend the next 12 hours reinstalling all the programs that were working perfectly fine 4 hours ago.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 17:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It takes you twelve hours? It doesn't even take me three. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, all the fun of upgrading from 32-bit XP to 64-bit 7, plus the interesting discovery that installing my keyboard drivers completely froze my keyboard. Then, of course, there's the small matter of re-installing 0.75TB of varying games, dll heaven really.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 23:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Saying nothing Linux 23:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Because we all know that Linux never has driver issues, right?</sarcasm> And it appears you missed the part where he said "games", something Linux pratically useless for. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Since running Ubuntu the only driver issues I've had have been with a twenty year old scanner and a brand new printer, both of which were solved in under 1/2 an hour. If people wanna play games (the desire has never come m way) I have every sympathy with their condition, much as I have with someone suffering from alzheimers. — Unsigned, by: SusanG / talk / contribs 23:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC
Games stave off the boredom. Basically stuck in the flat 24/7 so I need to find a way to keep myself amused.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 23:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
With linux, you won't even have to play your large collection of games, so you won't have to transfer them, and that means less work! And solving driver issues is easy, all you have to do is follow a 238 step process that was written in Mongolian. Its so simple! --173.188.48.25 (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Did I fall into a portal to 1999? Desktop Linux is ridiculously easy anymore, and wine has made such strides, that I never even use Windows anymore, including for games... As for drivers, I find modern Linux easier than windows to deal with. YMMV, I suppose... But damn. Quaruhybrid engine - You can't explain that! 00:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Shorter SusanG and Quaru: "Works for me". Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Which no one ever, ever says about Windows. On that note, I'm about to start working on a friends laptop in which Windows blew a wire, and will no longer wake from sleep, and spews garbage to the LCD after about 5 minutes... Glad it's just her. Well, at least she can play games, at least for a minute or two. Quaruhybrid engine - You can't explain that! 00:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
That is clearly a hardware problem that would happen if linux were installed.
Yeah? The linux boot disc in it right now says otherwise. Been up for an hour, to make sure it's not hardware. sleep and wakes just fine, oddly. Oh. I mean. You're right. Windows never breaks. I'll let her know. Quaruhybrid engine - You can't explain that! 00:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Jeebus. I mention installing Windows 7 and the next thing I know the Windows-Linux TekWars have broken out.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 00:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Right? When will people learn that all OS's suck. The best any one of us can hope for is "it works for me". Quaruhybrid engine - You can't explain that! 00:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Your comment is correct. However, Microsoft Windows is used by more then 90% of personal computer users, which means that Windows works for most people. Since Windows works for far more people then linux or osk, then that basically proves that Windows is a better OS.
Sure about that? In my experience, it means 90% of people don't care what their OS is, and use whatever comes on it.. And that 90% of users bitch about their computer, not knowing there's even other options.. Quaruhybrid engine - You can't explain that! 01:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
What the heck? I spend a half hour writing my rant, only to find that everyone's all hunky-dory now? Crap. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
You're absolutely right: Windows does suck. Gigantic donkey balls. It's user interface is inconsistent (the new Aero theme is nice but only skin-deep; the deeper you dig into the system options, the more the UI regresses to Windows 95-standards). Programs are allowed to do whatever they want with your system once you hit "install", and to make things worse, uninstalling the program still leaves behind unacceptable amounts of detritus from the program. The Windows Registry is opaque and unusable to the layperson. It was plagued for a long time by major security issues (older versions had no firewall and left all ports open by default) and still is (it still has holes in it's memory protection (whatever the term for it is, can't be bothered to look it up)). Also, pre-Vista, the graphics drivers sucked—hence the notorious blurring windows effect. If I took the time, I would be able to find even more problems.
And despite all of that, it's still a better desktop OS than Linux (servers and firmware are another matter entirely).
By the way—these are actual, specific problems, and not "Windows fried my friend's computer". Windows is on 85%+ of desktop computers right now—that's many, many, many millions of PCs. Shit is bound to happen. But for the most part, it's good enough—it kind of has to be, for Microsoft to succeed in the long term (which it has been). If Windows is as cripplingly bad as you believe it is, then way, way fewer people would use it. (Recall if you will the last genuinely shitty Microsoft OS, Windows ME, which was critically panned and generally unpopular.)
Compare this to say, desktop Linux, which, at its best, is a less stable, slightly uglier version of OS X with less software support, made worse by the albatross that is the notoriously fanatical, abrasive, and toxic GNU/Linux community. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Now, I challenge you to name at least a half-dozen specific problems that desktop Linux has. You aren't a true nerd if you can't critique the hell out of the things you love. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I f*** hate english language

I'm so sick of this "it is, isn't it" blabbing. Long conversation simply means "it is indeed, is it not". It sucks. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I can't wait for texting-speak to evolve into a proper dialect. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Then learn another one. Тогава ще можеш да дразниш хората на два езика.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Ty glupyi durak. (Sorry, don't mean that) --Idiot number 57 (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Доста по- на юг, всъщност. :D --ZooGuard (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)