Difference between revisions of "RationalWiki:Saloon bar"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(I sick and tired of whorin myself across London)
(666666: new section)
Line 343: Line 343:
::Impressive, considering Adams explicitly stated that he didn't write jokes in Base 13 or Base 2. I call BS, though, I bet he did. {{:User:Armondikov/sig}} 12:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
::Impressive, considering Adams explicitly stated that he didn't write jokes in Base 13 or Base 2. I call BS, though, I bet he did. {{:User:Armondikov/sig}} 12:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
:::He probably meant that he didn't purposefully write jokes like that. Often the funniest things are those which are unintentional. Of course it doesn't matter as fans will invent excuses in any event. But it's like Pi-day which only works for American dates, although it would be fun to have our own on 31/4 - BTW didn't someone once claim 1st May as British Pi-day? {{User:Lily/sig}} 12:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
:::He probably meant that he didn't purposefully write jokes like that. Often the funniest things are those which are unintentional. Of course it doesn't matter as fans will invent excuses in any event. But it's like Pi-day which only works for American dates, although it would be fun to have our own on 31/4 - BTW didn't someone once claim 1st May as British Pi-day? {{User:Lily/sig}} 12:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
== [[666|666666]] ==
As the master of reversion #666,666, I command all to bow down to me as your new satanic overlord!! --{{User:Onion/sig}} 15:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:41, 10 October 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.
Guinnesssmiley.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Invision-Board-France-355.gif

What is going on?

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

To do list

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) done
  • File papers with the IRS (early-mid August) done
  • Approval of the by-laws (early-mid August) done
  • Transition ownership of the domain, hardware and other physical and intellectual property from me to the foundation (late August) done
  • 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.pngmoral 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.pngmoral 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.pngmoral 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)

Death penalty

I'm generally not in favour of capital punishment, but when I come across stories like this, then I feel being hanged, drawn and quartered is too good for the man. Fuck it, I'd happily pull the switch on a sub-human like this.

Just when you think you've become sensitised to the horrors humanity can perpetrate, they still manage to shock you even more. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 09:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What he said! 09:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Yes, true, but for every case like that you can bring up another where it was bungled or unfairly applied or where it wasn't applied even though the crime was similar. I suppose that has to be the rational objection far more than whether someone deserves it or not. Scarlet A.pngmoral 09:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
What Armondokov said. You only need one failing of absolute punishment, and the whole argument should end there. Sadly, there have been many miscarriages of justice in capital cases and yet it is still going on. Bondurant (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to play Devil's Advocate a little (since I'm opposed to the death penalty in almost all cases, but am willing to make exceptions for truly monstrous crimes), what about horrific crimes where there's no doubt as to guilt? Timothy McVeigh, for instance, openly admitted his guilt (and was proud of it.) As I heard it said shortly before he was executed, "if America is going to have a death penalty, then surely Timothy McVeigh deserves to die." MDB (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree there are problems with the death penalty. However, I also think that somebody who ties 2 young girls to a bed then sets fire to them, deserves to die in an equally horrible way. I feel the same about child abusers. It might not be a deterrent blah, blah, blah, but at least those animals will experience the pain, fear and terror their victims did. That is justice. --PsyGremlinPrata! 11:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC) And yes, hearing of this case today for the first time has left me feeling quite ill.
Okay, let me play Devil's Advocate for the other side -- what good, ultimately, would executing the criminal do? His victims won't come back to life. Even as a believer in an afterlife, I don't believe in the idea of "resting easier", since I think of an afterlife as paradise. And if you don't believe in an afterlife, the idea of resting easier should be meaningless. You can argue that it brings some sense of comfort and closure to the victim's family, and I'm sure it does in many cases, but what does it say about us as a society if we say "it's acceptable to kill someone who has wronged you"? You can also argue that it will remove a threat from society permanently, but we have prisons now that are essentially inescapable -- should we take a life on the tiny chance someone might escape a supermax cell?
And here's a hypothetical -- let's say the victim was adamantly opposed to the death penalty. The family said, "she opposed the death penalty with every fiber of her being, and we ask that you honor that with a sentence of life imprisonment." Should that be the final word? MDB (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
What's the point of paying a fortune to keep them behind bars for the rest of their lives? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 11:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm too lazy to look up a citation, but I've often heard it said that life imprisonment is actually cheaper than the death penalty, due to the cost of the appeals process.

Anyway, do we really want to base the decision on whether or not to execute someone on financial concerns? MDB (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

@Psy, that's not justice, that's revenge. How can any society command the moral high ground if they are no worse than the criminals the seek to punish? You cannot say that you value life if you seek to take it other than in preventing the loss of further life. If we give into our baser emotions we become no better than a lynch mob.  Lily Inspirate me. 12:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I saw that story and thought the same thing. I can't help but feel it would have been so much better had the father/husband also died in the incident. ONE / TALK 12:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
@Lily Lynch mobs aren't sanctioned by the rule of law, or applied after a fair trial, so a society that executes criminals is better than a lynch mob. You can argue how much better, but there's really no wiggle-room for you to argue that they aren't better. Also, I disagree with the claim that a society that kills criminals is "no worse" than the criminals themselves. Society kills for revenge, which is a step up from killing for wealth/power/sex/the sake of it. Again, you can argue how much of a step up, but you can't really argue that it's not. ONE / TALK 12:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Since we're all playing devil's advocate, I though I'd pitch in with my 2c.
What good does it do to kill (aka execute) somebody after their crime? When society kills people, does it make society more civilised? Once the criminal is caught, are we still in imminent danger that (s)he may still kill one of us?
Have there been cases in the past where it has appeared someone is guilty beyond question, only for new evidence to come to light to cast doubt on that? Where do you then draw the line between those killers who should be executed and those that should not?
Assuming you are happy with capital punishment, are you happy (as in the US and many other countries) that people who committed murder when they were children are executed later on as adults? Or the mentally impared? Are you happy that innocent people will sooner or later be wrongly executed?
Taking a leap, but are you happy that there are ex-judicial executions going on throughout the world, i.e. when a suspected terrorist is vapourised by a laser guided bomb? Shouldn't they at least have their day in court as a common criminal (unless you buy into the lie that the "war on terror" is an actual war)? And, as inevitably happens sooner or later, 3-dozen innocent people get blown to pieces at the same time, do you shrug it off as a consequence of war? Next time you are walking down the street, imagine the next 30 people you see (adults and children) being put in the execution chamber for no reason other than them being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Bondurant (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I am square against the death penalty for one simply reason: I don't trust the legal system. We still hear people having their convictions overturned 10, 20 or 30 years down the line, whether it's due to corrupt pigs, incompetent lawyers, or any combination of other factors. You can release a fella from prison, give him a few quid to apologise, but you can't un-kill them (sorry if that offends any bible-thumpers, but you really can't bring people back from the dead). On another note, as I understand it in the US 'life imprisonment' actually means it; they will spend the rest of their lives in jail, si? Here in the UK these two would spent around 12 years in nick, possibly up to 15, but no more. Damn liberals. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 13:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Possibly, although some of the more notorious killers in the UK are (or have been) on "life means life" type sentences, e.g. Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley (the former two under the mental health act). Charles Bronson is unlikely to ever be released, despite never killing anybody. Bondurant (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with DeltaStar, the risk of innocents getting executed should be enough to argue against the death penalty - no other arguments needed. If we had some sort of magic machine that could prove guilt to 100%, I'd be in favour of the death penalty so hard that bodies would pile up in the streets. But alas, it is never to be. ONE / TALK 13:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't help but feel uncomfortable when you begin to dehumanise people based on their (admittedly appalling) crimes. Doing so merely pretends that execution is no different to destroying a dangerous dog when it is not, and refuses to deal with the actual moral question. Word evil Hoover! 15:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Evil harmonic Hoover. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
@Delta: Yes, we have Indeterminate Sentences, where life can indeed mean life. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is the argument of mainstream UK politicians, even Conservatives, to say that capital punishment can only be considered if you could satisfactorily answer the question: "What do you do when you execute an innocent person?" And when you stop and really think about it, and not default to gODDIT™, then that question is truly frightening. Just stop and think about it. You execute someone, so what about all the children they could have fathered if they had lived, what about all the lives they could have influenced if they had lived, how many lives do you taint by executing someone, are their children really consider it justice, or do they take a step towards being another Raoul Moat. When you stop and think about it the very act of executing somebody, such a final act, has repercussions and ripples that spread forward through time, kind of like all the ethical concerns about time travel, but very real and happening now.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 21:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it any better to keep a person in prison for life if the children believe their relative did not do the crime and is being unfairly treated ? The ompact on having kids and affecting people is severely curtailed as well. If the reasoning is 'life in prison isnt so bad' that its acceptable if we believe the legal system puts inoccent people away then the entire legal system should be reviewed. In my state its estimated that it costs $50,000 a year to confine an inmate. Thats $1,500,000 for a 30 year sentance. How much can a society afford when it impacts libraries, schools, health care for law abiding citizens etc. Hamster (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The legal system will always result in false convictions, although we should do as much as possible to prevent it. However, if someone is found to be innocent after 15 years in prison, they can be released and compensated. You cannot bring them back from the dead. Word evil Hoover! 16:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry SD, but that is a non-argument. (not to mention the fact that the debate has gone from the specific to the general). Yes, innocent people have been executed, and thus have no been able to influence the world. Using that example, what about the lost opportunity of the 2 girls who were burnt to death - where's their chance to influence society, have a family, etc? This debate was never meant to be about the death penalty in general, but more my venting that creatures like this, do not deserve to die humanely. So what if he gets the lethal injection - that's nothing compared to the suffering his victims felt, and at the least, he should feel the same as he dies. Innocence or guilt is not the issue here. He's guilty and I honestly see no problem with justice getting medieval on him. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 15:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
If you think that it is entirely morally justified to make him suffer, then I presume you would have no qualms with being given a garrotte wire and strangling him yourself? Or perhaps setting him on fire while he is tied down and watching him burn to death? Word evil Hoover! 16:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
None at all. --PsyGremlinSermā! 16:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Carrying further, would you have a problem with torturing him before killing him? You've already stated that your aim is to cause suffering as well as ending his life. 17:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
". . . at the least, he should feel the same as he dies". Why? Who does that benefit & how? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
This is taking a sinister turn. Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you. Bondurant (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Psy says:Yes, innocent people have been executed, and thus have no been able to influence the world. Using that example, what about the lost opportunity of the 2 girls who were burnt to death - where's their chance to influence society, have a family, etc?
What about them? Will killing him bring them back to life?--BobSpring is sprung! 18:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
No, but killing him will kill him. In fact, one might even say that the purpose of killing him is to kill him. And that sounds all find and dandy to me (my general opinions on the death penalty notwithstanding) ONE / TALK 08:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Any Linux geeks experts able to help?

I've just upgraded to Ubuntu 9.10, and after getting my eyes used to the new colour scheme and sorting my WiFi connection out; I now find I can't view any Flash videos. (I want to watch that Donald Duck thing up above!). I've using FF 3.6.10, and have removed the flash packages and reinstalled several times, both through apt and as a Debian package, but still nowt. With the addon Shockwave Flash 10.1.r85 enabled - youtube just shows a black box where the video should be. With Shockwave Flash 10.1.r999 Gnash 0.8.6 enabled, the video controls show, with "An error has occurred, please try again later..." at the top. I am not an expert with Linux, so please keep any advice "accessible!"that's a code word for understandable by thickoes - Cheers! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 16:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you running 32bit or 64 bit? -- Nx / talk 17:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
32bit - sorry, should've mentioned that. (I've got a 64bit install of Ubuntu studio on another external HDD, but have never been able to get WiFi working) DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 17:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Tangent...you just now upgraded to 9.10? Why? 10.04 LTS has been out since august.. and 10.10 comes out in 4 days. If you're using 64 bit, you're going to need a special copy of libflashplayer.so. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Installing the 64 bit version is actually less complicated than the ubuntu package. Just download, extract and copy to /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins. Gnash is crap btw, don't use it. Anyway, I have no idea what can be wrong. Do you maybe have another flash plugin somewhere, e.g. ~/.mozilla/plugins? Did you restart firefox after installing the plugin? -- Nx / talk 17:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd search for all occurrences of libflashplayer.so, remember where they are and then delete them. Go to adobe labs and grab the latest 32-bit player. Put the resulting libflashplayer.so file back where you had previously found it. probably /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins, /usr/lib/xulrunner-addons/plugins and /usr/lib/firefox-addons/plugins. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Tangent: I had been running 8.04LTS for ages, then all of a sudden it prompted me to upgrade to 9.10. I'll go for 10.04 or 10.10 64bit soon I think, and do a complete fresh install. Thanks for the tips for now, I'll give them a shot after tea. I think there's a shit version (like gnash) that's stopping the decent one from working... DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 18:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
It is time for someone to insert an obligatory OS War comment here. DogPMarmite Patrol 18:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm, Flash videos play in Chrome OK (albeit at a crap framerate), so it's something specific to FF. I've searched my entire filesystem, and can't find a file called libflashplayer.so anywhere..... DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 19:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, the 32 bit version of Chrome has a built-in flash player plugin. -- Nx / talk 19:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I installed Ubuntu over the weekend and had some minor problems getting flash. I fixed it by installing 'Ubuntu restricted extras' via the ubuntu software centre in the applications menu. It sorts out flash and java and a variety of other stuff.--AMassiveGay (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Well I didn't even know about the 'Ubuntu software centre', so thanks for that! I had already installed the restricted extras via the command line though, but it hasn't helped. What I don't quite get is the the software centre, package manager and apt all show Adobe flash installed, but FF only shows the crap gnash thing. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 20:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Uninstall gnash? maybe there is some kind of clash--AMassiveGay (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Want me to copypaste my rants from two months ago, DoggedP? : ) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 08:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Well then, I 'completely removed' all pieces of gnash via synaptic, went out and got completely leathered, and now flash videos are playing OK. Moral? Always go out and get pissed when there's a problem, and everything will be fine. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 23:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
"Leathered"? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The English language is far richer when it comes to describing the results of metabolizing ethyl alcohol than the American language. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh. I assumed it meant he patronized a BDSM club. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

He did, after he got Leathered.HKJGN (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Limbaugh: You're not rich unless you have $500 mil

How much is he worth again? So apparently he does not consider himself rich.--Thanatos (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I crunched the numbers awhile back, $1,000,000 in 1933 would be the equivalent of $60,000,000 now. That is never needs to do another day of work in your life money right there. - π 11:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Look at it this way. Let's say I had $500 mil, and then I deposited it in my credit union. (Which would be an insanely stupid thing to do, but this is just for example.) They're currently paying 0.45% interest per year on a standard savings account. I would earn $2.25mil in interest every year, from what is probably the most conservative investment plan conceivable. I think I would be considered fabulously wealthy on an income at that level, particularly if my entire "work" was checking my bank statements. Even a tenth of Limbaugh's definition of "wealthy" would give me a quite comfortable income of $225K, keeping with the same very conservative investment plan. Even just putting the money into a money market account would more than double that, and be safe. MDB (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
What the hell, my bank gives me an online savings account of 6.25%. - π 14:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It's the comments on the video that I like: "For me, Rush Limbaugh is not really a human being. But for a lot of people, it is." ~SuperHamster Talk 00:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Alternatively, with $500m in the bank you could draw down $10m a year for well over 50 years. (I can't be bothered to work out how long it would last at any assumed rate of return.)  Lily Inspirate me. 08:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Movie theatre idiocy

So I went to see The Social Network today, and a very fine film it is too - Sorkin and Fincher could make rice pudding exciting, so to find that this is a riveting character study that's relevant and punchy and fascinating isn't a surprise. But right at the very end, the douchebag next to me gets a call on his cell and answers it, and in the ensuing WTF-ery as me and everyone else around sssh-es him and waves at him to shut the fuck up, the last, most weighty line of the movie is delivered, and I miss it. Never have I so wanted a movie theatre TiVo as much - "Wait, what did she say?", I thought, before wanting to smash the dorks face in. So, my nice social media movie evening ruined by social media. Fuck social media. DogPMarmite Patrol 04:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I came to the conclusion many many years ago that if you want to watch a movie "uninterrupted", do it at home. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
PS, I hope the idiot got jumped in the parking lot, and got his tires slashed. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
When I saw Watchmen, I set next to a teenage girl who spent most of the movie texting on her glowing phone. Not as bad as talking, to be fair, but she just did not understand why I kept giving her nasty looks. I should have found an usher and complained.
Incidentally, that's one of the reason I no longer go to that theater and use one that's a lot less crowded.
And DoggedPersistence is right: The Social Network is a great movie. And speaking as a software engineer, I can say they got the technical dialog accurate, too. I even understood most of it. MDB (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I saw somewhere that KDE makes an appearance on a computer screen somewhere and that they got the version right for the period (2.something) and the correct date in a terminal window. How cool. </geek> Bondurant (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
They probably figured that this would be a movie a lot of techies would see, and made an effort to get the details right, because we would notice every mistake they made. MDB (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Although from what I've read of it, the resemblance between the movie and the real Mark Zuckerberg would make Starship Troopers appear a true representation of the books. Scarlet A.pngmoral 12:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh? I've heard that for the deposition sequences, the dialog was taken directly from the court transcripts, and those sequences are when Zuckerberg comes off the worst. MDB (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Dogged, that last line is "Of course you haven't got 3921 'friends' you sad little twat". DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 12:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not as bad as an annoying 16yr old with ADD commenting on ever second of the Film at the Scott Pilgrim movie, during the Devil preview he asked like 14 times 'why is the city upside down?', then during the movie he kept announcing the characters names, and what they were saying. I don't know if he had down syndrome or what but i wanted to pull his spine out his throat so i could atleast enjoy /half/ of the movie he was ruining.HKJGN (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fucking fuck buckets of Fuck, why is no one around when you NEED to talk?

I just found out that this totally smokin' babe from my highschool days is doing the cognitive tests on Andrew Wakefield's monkeys! And I can't tell her off because I don't want to loose contact with her (did I mention that she is a total babe?) so I need an outlet, but none of my other friends are online! Fuck! --Opcn (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "cognitive tests on Andrew Wakefield's monkeys" are, but I've dropped "smokin' hot babe"s from my "respect" list for being idiots. There are always other smokin' hot babes who don't... well, don't do whatever she did. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Andrew Wakefield Is injecting monkeys with MMR vaccine and doing gut biopsies and then cognitive tests trying to prove that he was correct. --Opcn (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
OK. So "de-friend" her. If she absolutely has to come over and fuck you, I wouldn't fault you for humoring her. Otherwise, waste of friendspace. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Gimmie her number, I'll talk her around. i9 08:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
You'll talk her square, then inside out, then upside down, then turn her into a squid with your majick powerz! ħumanUser talk:Human 08:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Is Wakefield a licenced vivisectionist? I thought he was struck off? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you Brad Pitt or something? Because unless you've got loads of money then hoping to get anywhere with "smokin hot babes" is probably doomed to failure and actually a pretty shallow way to think about women. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 10:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Only in the UK, but he's always been funded by US based cranks. No comment on the "smokin' hot" bit. Face.gif Scarlet A.pngmoral 12:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
"a pretty shallow way to think about women", get a grip of yersel! The chicks love it! Only fat old feminist lezzas object to that kind of lingo. My method of obtaining a "totally smokin' babe" was as follows: Met a girl and shagged her. Kept meeting her and shagging her. This then developed in to a serious relationship, at which point I declared her to be a "totally smokin' babe"; thus I am now going out with a totally smokin' babe! On a more serious note, Wakefield is a disgustingly amoral discredited quack; I suppose at least he's no longer doing such unnecessary intrusive procedures on kids. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 12:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, at least there'll be another bullshit paper out for us to debunk. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 13:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh for fuck's sake. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 13:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Re "Smokin Hot": Pics or it didn't happen. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 13:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
That's pretty grim reading. Is it just me or do anti-vaxxers sound exactly like cretinists? "Censorship! Brave campaigners fighting against the evolutionist/vaccination industry(?)" Plus the fact that so few of them are scientifically literate.
Study after study after study, followed by meta analysis and meta meta analysis have been carried on on this very subject, and they all show that vaccines do not cause autism. Whilst I know Big Pharma isn't always exactly honest, but do these people really think that all Millions of Doctors, health workers, government officials, WHO advisers etc etc et-fucking-cet are deliberately harming kids and are all on the payroll of big pharma? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 13:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
totally smokin' babe is a very subjective term, thus all that matters is that I make the assertion that to me she is a totally smokin' babe. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 13:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The thing I find funny about articles like the above from "Natural" websites is that they bitch and bitch about big pharma using animal testing, but as soon as a "brave" anti-vaxer starts doing it they hail him as a hero of science. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 13:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
She lives in another state and was not proselytising, but she is someone that I don't want to declare war one. Additionally I'd post photos but don't want to invade her privacy. Antivaxxers are always going on and on about how they aren't properly safety tested. If you take the time to walk through there concerns you can typically get the to agree that vaccines could be tested by doing X,Y, and Z. Then when you point out that we've already done a test with X, Y, and Z and it came out negative they get angry. --Opcn (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
In all seriousness, is any woman so hot that it's worth putting up with bullshit like this just to have a short lived relationship? Find a good looking bird who isn't a moron. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 19:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not looking for a sexual relationship, not in the short term at least, I just want to oogle her from afar. Also she is not a moron, she is just wrong. Ever hear of Linus Pauling? Absolute genius got DNA wrong then failed big on Vitamin C and cancer. I just wanted an outer so I could talk about it but not to her so as to avoid starting off on the wrong foot. I'm going to encourage her to not put on her resume that she was working with/for Wakefield.--Opcn (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
We might like to be told that we're physically attractive but inside we know that it's mostly just men's bullshitting. Most of the women I know, apart from footballers' WAGS, prefer that their blokes actually like them for something other than having a pert arse and a DD that's not round their waist. We are only too well aware that our looks are mostly transient and any bloke that that gets his tail yanked by a 'red-hot babe' is probably not worth having around in the first place. That said, most of my colleagues reckon that they could probably forgive a one-off infidelity if it was purely based on looks. Men's affairs with less glamorous women are far more serious because they probably indicate that there is something more serious lacking in a relationship.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Like someone for something other than their looks? thats just sick.--AMassiveGay (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────We hadn't talked in 5 years, and she was good looking the entire time. The reason I re-initiated contact to her is because she changed her profile to mention how much she appreciated Darwin. --Opcn (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Darwin! What a totally hot smokin' dude.  Lily Inspirate me. 17:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is an interesting rant

Here is an interesting rant about the Pope's vist (anti-Christian, pro-visit). The blogger is a producer on sports radio but to me that makes it all the more interesting that he would write at such length on this topic.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 13:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It is an interesting rant, well written and well reasoned. I agree with him on the vitriol seen when the Pope was here being reactionary and out of order. I feel he misses one small point though, and that is that the Pope's visit should not have been classed as a state visit, as it was plainly a religious visit. There are some who would say that even £1 of public money spent on a religious visit is too much, and that the bill should have entirely been picked up by the Catholic church. Bondurant (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
His comments about the sexual abuse scandals, reducing the cover-ups to "an ultimately misguided adherence to the notion of forgiveness" are a bit off-base. How the Church has treated its own priests over these allegations can perhaps be seen in light of Christian forgiveness, but it has also deliberately kept the allegations from the proper legal authorities, including (if reports are accurate) by intimidating abuse victims into silence. This can hardly be seen in terms of misguided forgiveness or other Christian virtues, and the Church is only apologising for its past conduct now because the allegations have come to light so publicly. Yet the attitude of the Catholic Church is still that cases of child abuse by priests should be handled by the Church as an internal matter rather than by secular legal authorities. This is basically placing the RCC above the law in any country where it operates. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please explain

  1. Creation
  2. Consciousness

-- (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  1. Random distributions, infinite time.
  2. Illusion, evolution. tmtoulouse 18:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
None of this was supposed to make any sense, right? -- (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Illusion is a circular explanation for consciousness. I don't see the evolutionary benefits of consciousness. -- (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
"I don't see..." = Argument from ignorance. Also, it's not necessary to have benefits - it can be just an emergent by-product of increased cognitive abilities. If you don't see the benefits of that, well...
It would be nice to start with providing some definitions of the things you want explained. As well as some idea of what would you consider an adequate explanation. If you are not willing to do so, then, please:
  1. Troll
  2. elsewhere.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Definition: wikipedia:Consciousness#Phenomenal and access consciousness (why can we see blue? etc). If you want to say intelligence == consciousness, then say, but how do you think either follows from the other? -- (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Ooh, I'll bite! Consciousness is easy. Building on what tmtoulouse said above, there are distinct evolutionary advantages to the increasing brainpower it takes to develop a good, complex mapping of one's physical and social surroundings (environment in general). A good complex map will eventually "include" the creature doing the mapping - "I take up some space in this place, I hunt bison and eat them, etc.; therefore I am". I could tell the 100,000 year version of the story but I don't think the level of effort put into the question really warrants that. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
You didn't click the link, did you? Perception is what lead me to think about this. The answer I'm seeking is how a pile of ordinary matter like me can perceive colors, sounds and so on. What is the leap from dead to conscious? Evolution may explain how we & our consciousness came to be, it doesn't explain consciousness. -- (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
"Evolution may explain how we & our consciousness came to be, it doesn't explain consciousness". So what do you actually mean by "explain consciousness"? Explain what it is rather than how it originated? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It makes my head hurt to try to say what I mean by that. However the point I was making in the quoted part was that evolution as the answer feels too much like a play on words / "the world does its thing". Even if we accept that under circumstances evolution leads to intelligence leads to consciousness. -- (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It's still not clear what sort of explanations you're looking for. Instead of simply telling us to "explain consciousness", try rephrasing it as a question - if we start with a "what" or a "how" or a "why", then we'll at least know what kind of answer you want. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually I'm not so sure about consciousness. I suppose we know what "intelligence" is "for". It helps us to solve problems like getting dinner or laid - the two most important things in evolutionary terms. But this little story that we constantly tell ourselves in our heads (if that is what consciousness is) - what does it do for us in evolutionary terms? --BobSpring is sprung! 19:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't see the evolutionary benefits of consciousness? Have you noticed perhaps the distinct advantage human beings have gained over many other species during the last few million years in terms of survival & dominance of resources? Even basic abilities derived from consciousness like abstract thought, problem-solving, communication and understanding of causation give an enormous survival advantage (e.g. in locating food or avoiding predators) over animals which do not have these abilities. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
EC:It could be argued that those are benefits of intelligence. Unless you want to argue that lots and lots of intelligence = consciousness.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I find it doubtful that a creature could evolve the level of intelligence required for those kind of skills without some level of consciousness. Human explained it well above in terms of mapping surroundings, but it equal applies to mapping of time & events (i.e. causation) which is required for abstract problem-solving. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It really depends on what you think consciousness is. It's a really massive topic which doesn't really lend itself one-paragraph explanations. Apart from defining it there are other problems. For instance the conscious explanation which we ascribe to our actions seems to frequently come after the the decision to act has been made. Almost as if consciousness exists to explain our actions to us rather than to actually inform our actions. As I said, it's a big topic.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
2. The problem with consciousness is that we don't even know how it works, so an all powerful god might not even have the means to make it, or it might be as simple as an automatic transmission, we just don't know what it is, so how are we supposed to know how it is? Ignorance is very poor ground on which to build your castle.--Opcn (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
did someone suggest that animals do not have consciousness ? I understand that to mean a sense of self. Hamster (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, they most certainly do, especially the larger-brained mammals. Trouble is, they lack the tools to grow it from generation to generation (and from peer to peer) that we have - our language abilities, both physical and mental. Suggested reading: Harold Bloom's Shakespeare: The Invention of Man or some such title. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Quite literally lack the tools. Tools replacing the need for raw muscle usage broke us, as a species, out of the muscle developement/lung developement evolutionary arms race that most wild mammalian species are still trapped in. The brain refuses to use any fuel apart from oxygen so the ability to not have to have such a high ratio of oxygen use dedicated or at least reserved for instant muscle usage means that that amount of oxygen can now be dedicated towards brain usage. The brains that are most capable of using that fuel effectively will, on odds at least, find themselves in bodies that are most likely to be mated and at least have the chance to pass on that advantage to their offspring (something that can be seen in current monkey species. Although it is the most physically capable male monkey that claws it's way to the top of the social structure, and so wins the right to mate, the only monkeys that get to stay at the top of the heap are the ones who are intelligent enough to navigate the complex political structure of the troupe and so remain in power. Monkeys who just have the physical attributes to claw their way to the top, but lack the intelligence to treat the females correctly, find themselves thrown out of the troupe by the collective act of the females). In effect humans got locked into a tool development/brain development loop. As our tools developed we freed up the resources necessary for brain development. Brain development itself would have developed in competition with and in adaption to the surrounding environment.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 23:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Your physiology doesn't sound right, I'd correct it for you, but right now I have to go give a physiology lecture to some undergrads ... --Opcn (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Alright. The heart and lungs aren't all that costly to maintain. the extra muscle we loose in the process of loosing muscle actually is what pays for the brain in that scenario, not the decreased heart/lung tissue. However that's nothing like the whole picture. The brain uses the O2 as an oxidizer in order to burn fuel, nerve cells burn carbohydrates primarily and some aminoacids and they rely on oxidation to get the full measure of energy from these fuels. With out oxidation you need a fairly large volume of dedicated cytoplasm and some costly proteins in order to undergo glycolysis and fermentation and you only get a small fraction of the energy (less than 1/15th), this system is too expansive to fit into a nerve cell, not to expensive. If you compare us to a chimp the musculature isn't that terribly different. A Chimp has tremendous arms and hands but there legs aren't shit compared to human legs. Over 25 feet maybe a chimp might beet you, but try running 2500 feet. A healthy human can run for half an hour easily, a healthy chimp would be a quivering pile of goo after that. The big difference is our diet. The human diet is far richer than that of the chimp, both more calorically dense and more fatty acids and protein, which are needed to build and run the expensive brain. I'm not against just so stories, but I think yours needs some work. --Opcn (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Not to belittle either of the posts since mine in any way, they are very interesting, but the "tools" I was really referring to were our complex laryngial (word?) capacity and our co-evolved speech center in the brain. Opcn, surely you are just describing the difference between aerobic and anaerobic breakdown of glucose? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
By chance I find something on this in the Guardian today. Eleven minutes of interesting listening. Covers a number of issues we have been talking about.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I was just talking about stunteddwarfs post human, I hadn't even read yours I skimmed until I found something sciency then read it. --Opcn (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lou Dobbs: American hypocrite

An investigative report suggests that Lou Dobbs, famous for bashing illegal immigrant workers, had hired them himself for years. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 20:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not even remotely surprised. It seems like the loudest voices are usually the biggest hypocrites. Churro (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Nor was I. Classical example of political hypocrisy. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk!
He answered the report on MSNBC last night. I'm not real convinced of his honesty. On a side note, did anyone see the interview on Rachel Maddow with congressional candidate Art Robinson? What a toolbag conspiracy theorist nutjob. Aboriginal Noise Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? 13:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


This has been getting some airtime over here. Remarkable story - and a HUGE awwwww moment, if it's true. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 05:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't make it to 0:30. Didn't know why I was supposed to... ħumanUser talk:Human 05:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Fuck Psy, that is a damned old story firstly. Secondly this proves that Lions could well have been vegetarians and loving during the garden of Eden days so Adam and Eve wouldn't have to worry.....actually, I wonder if PJR would go for that reasoning? i9 06:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
You should know Ace, news is slow getting down to these parts. We're all still in shock over that dreadful Titanic thing. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 06:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Those Zulu Wars really took the wind out of ya. i9 06:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
That just means you can get your news from the History Channel. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 07:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
God forbid, no! That would mean WW2 breaking out at least once a week. --PsyGremlinParlez! 07:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Sexy burka.

Way to make a point I think.--BobSpring is sprung! 07:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of this. NSFW --PsyGremlinParlez! 07:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Meh. Go straight to Google. Rule 34, remember?
A friend and I were discussing burkas once and he said his attitude towards them had been totally changed when he found out that most women go naked underneath them - at least in hot weather. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I recently discovered that most women are naked underneath their clothes. Now is that a turn-on or what? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 08:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not naked under my clothes. It's clothes all the way down. ONE / TALK 09:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I put so many clothes on that the sheer mass of my clothes collapsed me into a black hole. Every time I try to hug somebody, they get get spaghettified. So lonely here. (holy crap, how did I let information escape?)--Brendiggg (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what this is


but I ctrl Vd it before the backup ran. I suspect it might be funny, and might be Angleterrean. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, those guys are about the best thing in British TV comedy these days. You should check out Peep Show (the sitcom they're in). You can probably find quite a lot of it on YouTube. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Was this the same people? Very, very funny around 3:30, I must say. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Widespread capture

Moved to Talk:Main Page. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why? It doesn't appear to be anything to do with the site's main page, which is what its talk page is for. In fact, the bolded text at the top of Talk:Main Page directs anyone with non-technical questions about the site to come to this page & discuss them. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Screw you Jindal

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/politics/104462469.html up to $350 million in cuts. But we haven't raised taxes yet! Yesterday LSU and ULL held rallies including a mock funeral. Russian, Japanese, Portuguese and Swahili are gone. The South's only synchrotron radiation center is gone. Coaches and Administrators got a raise. Jindal ran on an anti-corruption ticket. Apparently his logic is that if the government is no longer spending any money, there will be no corruption. Or something. Considering the infamous "chicken bailout", who knows? Even his own party is turning against him. Yet his approval rating is still great! Hopefully, there will be an upset in 2011, but I doubt it.Tyrannis (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, he cut taxes 6 times so far. At first he didn't want to do one of them, until they told him it was a way to get rid of the state income tax, so he cut it. $1.1billion over 5 years... Oh, and the chicken factory was $50mil. Tyrannis (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


Anyone heard of it? Anyone interested in doing it? I'm strongly considering it, it sounds like a lot of fun. (Plus it'll give me something to complain about in the SB.) Tetronian you're clueless 14:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've tried it a few years ago (and failed, but whatever). Veeery tempted to try it again, but this year sounds unlikely since I got an exam to study for. Though I might still join and see how far I get (by writing in the evening when I'm not up for studying anyway). --Sid (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I remember a few years back several RWians were participating/contemplating participating in this. IIRC. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I did it oh...seven years ago, I think. Finished it in 9 days. My focus isn't really on writing these days, though, and I've got WAY too much homework this year. It's pretty extreme. --Kels (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Nine days!! Wow, Kels, you write fast! I'll be lucky if I can just barely make it in 30. Tetronian you're clueless 02:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh heck, it's not that big a deal. One of my friends that year did it in five, then went on to do two more before the end of the month. Although I think I was one of the first 20 or 25 or so done that year. --Kels (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thought about it, and decided against it, recalling that the slogan of NaNoWriMo is "anyone can be a writer if you lower the bar enough". That said, it could be an interesting prospect to use the Media Wiki software to collaborate on a story - as a large group - and see how long it takes to reach the word limit (and see how good it is, of course). Scarlet A.pngmoral 13:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
We did try that and it worked pretty well. Might be worth a shot. Tetronian you're clueless 13:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
That's the "one sentence at a time" job. And yes, those are fun when they go in the right direction. I meant as in a full collaborative thing where people could just edit it as they please in a full collective essay style. Scarlet A.pngmoral 14:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
That would definitely be fun. The question is, do we have enough people willing to do it? Tetronian you're clueless 17:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Gotta be for us

Brain Cycle Helmet.gif from here 15:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

A clever idea, but I can't imagine who'd want to ride around with that on their heads. Bike shorts are bad enough. Tetronian you're clueless 16:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Want one, want one, want one! I wonder if they deliver internationally. Hey, Tetronian you're clueless, as soon as you get on the bike you look stupid. Healthy, ecologically sound, cost effective, fun and... stupid. It's still my favourite way to get to work. Jack Hughes (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

BBC to link to actual science papers in science articles

That's definitely a step in the right direction. Hat tip to Ben Goldacre. Tetronian you're clueless 17:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hallelujah! Their reasoning for being actively against it was never quite sound anyway. Scarlet A.pngmoral 07:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Why can't I seem to be able to put these in the Category:Images?

Civic Cat (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

because they're transcluded from Wikimedia commons; they're not part of the RationalWiki site. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Now all I got to do is read the WP article on transclusion.  ;-)  Civic Cat (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
We can enter image names like President Kennedy with ice cream cone, 31 August 1963.jpg and if they aren't on our wiki, the MW software checks if they are on the commons. If they are, they look just like images that we host, except for the bugaboo you noted. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Well I have just added Category:Images to the first file (using HotCat). I don't claim to understand all this inter-wiki stuff but even though RW doesn't host the original image aren't thumbnails and other resolutions cached on the RW server?  Lily Inspirate me. 08:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Can I also point out that using "category:images" for images is a bit lame anyway? ħumanUser talk:Human 08:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree, I just added a Category:Images as proof of concept as that was the original question.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, ok, I see. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletions and rampages of delinking

Has it occurred to anyone that articles can be rewritten, before deleting and then purging the site of links to them? For example, see law enforcement, which if it isn't on mission, nothing is. It was crap, but it took me 3 minutes to rewrite it as a decent stub. Of course, now all the links to it have been deleted. Nice job of working together, friends. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the new version seems on-mission. --Oniontalk/edits 01:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. No blood no foul, but sometimes before deletion we really need to think about whether a topic can easily be fixed. I agree, the previous version sucked, and I'm glad I able to compose something more useful - which could use a lot more info, and perhaps be a "title article" for template:law. Someday. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for daring to break your Glorious Wiki oh Great Leader. Scarlet A.pngmoral 01:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
All I did was rewrite a deleted article, it wasn't that hard, it was such an obvious on-mission topic. Oh, and at Charles Manson, all I did was follow Weaseloid's suggestion and rearrange the article. You are forgiven your trespasses as you forgive mine, of course - without reservation. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Human on this. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

WTF do Mormons Believe!!!

Went to youtube today. I saw this in the recommended for me. It is an old cartoon explaining Mormonism. After seeing it, I am glad I am an Anglican.--Thanatos (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that cartoon before, YT keeps trying to delete it and people keep uploading it to prevent deletion. I think it's a joke. At least, I really, really hope it is, it just can't be serious! Or is it? --Oniontalk/edits 01:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
And Glenn Beck is a Mormon. BECK IS TRYING TO BECOME A GOD!!!--Thanatos (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not far wrong. Where do you think they nicked half the Battlestar Galactica mythology from? Scarlet A.pngmoral 01:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I sick and tired of whorin myself across London

I think I need a boyfriend. Any offers?--AMassiveGay (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I am unemployed with no prospects, couch surfing, and crippled by mental health issues. Quite a catch really. On the plus side, I look fucking amazing, with perfect hair, and I am fantastic in the sack. It would probably help if you are incredibly shallow.--AMassiveGay (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Have you considered strolling down the King's Row tossing your coiff delicately in the breeze? Surely if you are so hot and young, some rich bloke will have his chauffeur cruising you in no time? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, public toilets. I hear the Gent's is a great place to get/give a handjob in the dark with a complete stranger. Prick up your ears, young man, there are many ways to thread this needle! ħumanUser talk:Human 05:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Handjobs in toilets is for closeted folk. Besides, george micheal in prison at the moment. Thank christ for gaydar.--AMassiveGay (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, well, then, you need to go to the Cock and Bollocks and wear an appropriate pocket square, one that says "available for boyfriendness, but will settle for a quick tumble in my bum if you are rich or pretty", right? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
If you're a god and know you must be worshipped, I have somebody in mind for you. If you're into older... as in very older... guys, that is. :) --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
My best mate is gay and we live in London, so he fits 2 of the 2 criteria. That said, I don't think he'd be big on dating random online gay sluts with no prospects and crippling mental health issues. SJ Debaser 10:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
In the end, "A Massive Gay", the hard part (sorry) is finding a person you are sexually compatible with, and also socially/emotionally compatible with. This is far more complicated than getting laid, as I am sure you know. Join clubs. Pursue your interests. Hopefully those ends will meet your needs - in the end. ħumanUser talk:Human 10:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Dammit, I have no interests beyond getting laid. Maybe I should try celibacy for a bit. I can knock the fags and drugs on the head too. I might actually feel better.--AMassiveGay (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
"I can knock the fags... on the head". Not the best way of establishing a relationship.  Lily Inspirate me. 15:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

42 day

I was on the verge of asking many times. Now I get it! I am so proud of my broken or mismatched gold jewelry! ħumanUser talk:Human 08:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Onion added 10.10.10 to the Holydaze template but I had just read about it in the Grauniad. Evidently, H2G2 aficionados will be hopping onto No. 42 buses and thinking Deep Thoughts. Unfortunately, it won't be an annual event.  Lily Inspirate me. 12:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Impressive, considering Adams explicitly stated that he didn't write jokes in Base 13 or Base 2. I call BS, though, I bet he did. Scarlet A.pngmoral 12:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
He probably meant that he didn't purposefully write jokes like that. Often the funniest things are those which are unintentional. Of course it doesn't matter as fans will invent excuses in any event. But it's like Pi-day which only works for American dates, although it would be fun to have our own on 31/4 - BTW didn't someone once claim 1st May as British Pi-day?  Lily Inspirate me. 12:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


As the master of reversion #666,666, I command all to bow down to me as your new satanic overlord!! --Oniontalk/edits 15:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)