RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive217

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 14 January 2014. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, (new)(back)

Contents

Mary was telling the truth![edit]

Apparently one percent of unmarried teenage mothers in the US are virgins. No mention of DNA tests though.--Coffee (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course the method used can't determine whether these cases are mostly associated with ignorance (didn't realise that fucking someone counts as losing your virginity or, didn't understand consequences of having sex) or deceitfulness (so scared their parents will find out about sinful sex that they lie to a non-judgemental survey).
I know that for boys, at least in the UK, you get the diametric opposite, by their mid teens a good portion will exaggerate the number of sexual partners they've had in anonymous surveys, pointless as that is. Tialaramex (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I think we need to take them at their word. The second coming is nigh. God's learned his lesson; he's creating redundant messiahs, because he knows we can't crucify them all. Maybe there will be a death match tournament; only the strongest Jesus will reign. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The Quickening. There can be only one. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The Journal of Irreproducible Results ran a similar study in 1993. I had that issue, can't find it now and can't find even a contents listing on the internet ... - David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible Woo[edit]

So watching HLN for the lolz and news, I saw yet another example of woo. It's some (amateur)movie called Fat,Sick and Nearly Dead. For example,it has this line...

I threw away that prescription bottle.

Gee. I wonder if this is some sort of Altmed tract that tells you to stop taking your meds, stop eating "Evil GMO food" and engage in all sorts of bullshit.--The Madman (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman

Seems to be heavily linked to the work of the Nutritional Research Foundation who, from a quick scan of the site, seem to be largely about promoting vegetarianism (or at least minimizing meat consumption) but not stepping too deeply into woo territory. I did catch the line "Cancer is also a preventable cause of death significantly linked to diet and environmental factors," which gave me a twinge since it's always dodgy when dietary groups start talking about cancer. I'll leave it to someone more knowledgeable whether they're actually woo or not though. --Kels (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The NFR seems to be owned by one Joel Fuhrman. A quick look around some of his stuff seems kinda overselling things (Like a diet cures arthritis and herpes, which perplexingly cite journal articles), to outright "wha?" (Diet preventing cancer? Nothing particularly great cited here), but he does have some legitimate points (like Type II Diabetes is often caused by poor dietary choices). Woo? I'm not entirely sure, since I'm leaning on the side of no. He doesn't seem nearly as bad as Natural News or Dr. Oz at least. (WP) Zero (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Santa as you've never seen him before[edit]

Magic mushrooms could explain the origins of Santa. PsyGremlinParla! 05:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel like this is getting towards internet law territory. Is there any event in history that you can't find someone explaining as the result of mushroom intoxication? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Fun with the UK porn filter[edit]

I've been looking at O2's url checker to see what sites are blocked under the default settings of its porn filter. I've heard that a few sites with LGBT content have been snagged, but everyone will be pleased to know that RationalWiki has escaped - we're classified simply as a reference site. Stormfront is unsurprisingly blocked as a hate site, but somewhat oddly is also classified as a gaming site; poor old Jack Chick is also blocked as a hatemonger. Some of the lesser-known hate sites have slipped through the net - AssataShakur.org is classed as a law site, while the Anglo-Saxon Foundation is down as an alcohol site (which would explain a lot). Islamic Awakening and Demonbuster.com are labelled simply "religion". FSTDT, meanwhile, falls under "entertainment and music". Balaam (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

findingada.com is a blocked site as well. We don't want girls finding out that they can do science! 82.1.207.206 (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2013‎
Well, her name was Lovelace. Surely she must know Linda. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Testing the YouTube libertarians[edit]

We've linked to writer John Green a few times, and he's been doing a Bill Nye-style history series called Crash Course. A few months he pissed off wingnuts for telling the conventional facts on the New Deal.

He just completed the Carter years, so guess what's coming next. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You guys haven't seen the worst of it. He just did an episode on the rise of "modern conservatism" and wingnuts started screaming about how he was a "liberal revisionist" for acknowledging the existence of the Southern Strategy and then some libertarians started ranting about how MLK wasn't really left-wing. Also the oft-repeated "THE DEMOCRATS USED TO HAVE THE RACISTS, SO LIBERALS WERE THE REAL RACISTS!" talking point is rehashed, which is probably one of the laziest PRATT's wingnuts keep using over and over again. I've been thinking of making a page about "YouTube Libertarians" but thought it might be a little much. ClothCoat (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
As we've discussed before, it's not just endemic to YouTube.
The Southern Strategy is so blatantly documented that any denials can be dismissed out of hand. But I'm expecting they're going to cover Jesus 2.0 in a "gateway" fashion (poke some holes and get people to think, as opposed to the "all you know is wrong" approach some scholars have had to do with JFK's screw-ups). The power of personality cults are derived from mainstream appeal... and because, as we've seen recently, the conservative blogosphere can be riled up from some very trivial things. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

"The local Fox News"[edit]

Question for the US-Americans with televisions. Mrs. Leather was at a small labour protest today, and a friend just called to tell us she was on "the local Fox News." The question is, are Fox News's local stations as reprehensible in their coverage of local events as the Mothership Fox News is on the national front? Do the local affiliates all walk the line, or do they have a degree of independence? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 03:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

They are independent...mostly. National stories are typically fed by the mothership, but the local stories tend to have an objective look. Zero (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Fox network television is independent from Fox News, but owned by the same parent company. They are pretty much like any local network news -- ABC, NBC, etc. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Mine is. I remember watching coverage of a Rocky Mountain oyster festival, with one of the anchors interrupting with a very unjournalistic rant about how he thought it wasn't family friendly and everything should be family friendly. And they have the same practice of hiring a single attractive blonde woman for their anchor teams.--"Shut up, Brx." 13:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The stations are independent, BUT...a fair number of them are owned by Sinclair, which seems hell-bent on being Fox News's own Mini-Me. Some of their reporting (and nearly all of their commentary. Looking at YOU, Mark Hyman) on national events can get bad, but the local stuff is fairly objective.--199.189.231.196 (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It's my experience that news on the television is always read by a single blonde attractive female regardless of which station it is, but I usually listen to the radio/read the paper, so I'm not the guy to ask. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 13:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
That Diane Rehm...--"Shut up, Brx." 14:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
And yet in the UK others will remark that the news always seems to be read by some "foreigner" (in Daily Mail speak). Sadly, long-gone are the days when the news was deemed to be serious business and could only be read by (white) men, wearing dinner jackets. It's only since they started reporting on gossip and frivolities that they've let metrosexuals and women of any colour get in on the act. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. Moderator 14:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I also object to single blond women reading the news. Why can't we have multiple blond women reading it?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 07:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Pittsburgh has a Fox affiliate station, but it doesn't have its own news program. It did for a short period in the 1990s, with Kurt Angle (the wrestler) on sports, but he couldn't pronounce the names of any athletes (see: Chi Chi Rodriguez). Aboriginal Noise Punkrock 15:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Awesome WKRP reference there. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 15:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Glad someone picked that up. It was just that bad. My friends and I still reference his sportscasting as "Krut Anglee on Sprots." I do remember the short-lived news program having a conservative line to it, though. Aboriginal Noise Punkrock 16:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I WAS HACKED. (I wonder if anyone here will get this.) --Revolverman (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Joe Jacobs? Wow, that's oooooooooold! SophieWilderModerator 17:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Viral Marketing[edit]

Does anyone else think the Duck Dynasty thing was a hoax perpetuated on christian conservatives by A&E? This is front page news on every conservative news outlet in the country. You can't buy that kind of publicity. A&E has nothing to lose because none of these fans would stop watching and all they have to do is end the guy's "suspension" to get these people feel like they did something meaningful. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a good one. Record label "asks rising white virgin teen girl pop star to stop singing so much about jesus". Conservatives are outraged, Sarah Palin has shit to say about it, JPatt is trending on twitter. Due to the backlash, the label "decides to let the artist choose her own artistic direction" and releases the same album they were going to release anyway. Regardless of content, platinum in a week, I guarantee it. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Boycotts are no longer effective -either the company's market share is so large you can't escape them, or the segment of the population they pissed off is already marginalized. Restaurants refused to serve black people when the owners figured they wouldn't get much money from blacks to begin with, but white people would flock to a restaurant where there were no black people to offend their sensibilities. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 21:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
That's what's perfect about the duck show thing, a boycott doesn't even make sense because these people love the show and want to support the rest of the cast. The only thing they can do is talk about it, which is exactly what people are doing. The guy will be back within weeks and ratings will be increased as a result of this stunt. Ceteris paribus except for the ratings. Everyone in the conservative demographic talked about it. And it didn't cost a goddamn dime. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Conservatives don't understand free speech, part #1432. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
This is the first I have heard of "Duck Dynasty." Let me get this straight--there have been 5 seasons of a show about a family that makes duck calls? Do they, like, show you ho different duck calls work and what goes into making them? Or is it, like, a sitcom or some sort of family drama about duck-call makers where the duck calls aren't that central to the plot? Who does this guy play? I don't understand. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 23:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there also a "Duck Dallas" on a rival network? ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
My mom loves this show; don't ask me why. I've seen a few episodes and had some chuckles, but otherwise, I don't get the appeal. You're spot-on in calling it a sitcom, though I'd add that it's also a reality show. The Robertsons are basically a duck-hunting, pickup-driving, Bible Belt version of the Kardashians, right down to one of the daughters having entered the modeling world. Their entire image is that they're proud Southern rednecks who struck it rich, a real-life version of the Beverly Hillbillies (only with duck calls instead of oil), so Phil Robertson's anti-gay comments didn't surprise me in the least. KevinR1990 (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Reality shows are still a thing? Who knew? No wonder writing is dead. Also, what's a Kardashian? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 00:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The antagonists from Star Trek: Deep Space 9 I believe. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 05:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I only really know about the Kardashians because people keep posting links to the Daily Mail either here or on FB. Do they do anything on UK TV or are they just part of the C-list celeb cloud which has somehow drifted across the Atlantic like the remains of a hurricane? Redchuck.gif ГенгисGum disease Moderator 15:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I find it more of a reason to remember why I'm not a libertarian: because your boss is a bigger threat to your freedom of speech and religion than the police or government are. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I haven't watched A&E since they stopped calling themselves Arts & Entertainment. I remember when they used to run stuff like Sherlock Holmes and Hornblower. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Surely that was the Playdude channel. Or am I thinking of a different Sherlock Holmes and Hornblower thingy?--Stunteddwarf Jabba de Chops 07:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Dunno if this is important as opposed to just more gossip, but from the same interview, the guy also showed himself to be a bit of a racist as well. And by "a bit", I mean "he makes Paula Deen look like Al Sharpton." KevinR1990 (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I've never watch duck dynasty because it's reality TV, and it about killing ducks. Since I've had pet ducks in the past, I'd rather not watch people kill them D: Screw you duck dynasty! Eggimations (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

As a resident of Alabama, I have seen T-Shirts EVERYWHERE on my fellows and know the general concept, but that's about it. I don't get the craze, though.--The Madman (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman

And again[edit]

Another perfect example of this style of marketing is Cracker Barrel, who "pulled" Duck Dynasty merch from stores, only to put it back later that week after "public outcry", "coincidentally" just in time for the Sunday church rush. Google trends will soon confirm this was a winning campaign. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

All of this paints a picture of false flag business practices. I saw a movie about this recently...was it this one? Or maybe it was this one. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

New accounts[edit]

Robotchanges.png Wow, them spammers have been really busy over the last two days signing up new accounts. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member Moderator 11:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Last minute rush to fill their Christmas quotas. At least the spam filters seem to be doing their job. What's happened to our shoot-on-sight watchdog bot thingy? PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
A false positive on some legitimate edits made the edit filter's weapons be set from kill to stun, it seems. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Christmas just wouldn't be Christmas without some V14gRa and R01eXes. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
There seem to be some remarkably bored (or perhaps boring) IP vandals at the moment as well. Is it the holidays?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 15:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
could someone look at THIS and decide if its worth reverting or not = thanks Hamster (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Done and done. ħumanUser talk:Human 10:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Yawn-o-rama. I seem to have attracted a feudmeister from this hole (a place I've never been, and never want to). I have half a mind to gut the RW article on it down to a stub. Leuders (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
One of them did go to my talk page. I simply told him to fuck off and blocked him for a day. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 14:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow 213 or so filtered spam edits in the last 36 hours. Christmas is indeed in the air. I don't understand why they're rushing to get these spams posted by Christmas or the end of the year considering the purpose is SEO optimization, but bless their dear hearts for trying so hard. We're trying harder. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No kidding. Perhaps we should add back the banning to the filters? Zero (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I'm taking it off if there's not a marked drop off in new accounts. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Can't we force people signing up for accounts do something constructive? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
There should be some kind of mode we can enable to stop account creation during the parts of the day when most people aren't around..... Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Perhaps we could call it "Night mode". Wait ... that's been done somewhere hasn't it?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 11:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Night mode? Pfft, if we were serious about spammers we'd copy the incredible success of Citizendium and require all new accounts to file a detailed application containing the credentials and personal beliefs. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 11:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

News from Spain[edit]

The right-wing Spanish government is in the process of tightening up abortion laws. In future they will only be allowed under two cases: rape and if the health of the mother is in question. Other reasons, such as congenital defects, wouldn't be allowed.

In addition to the above, girls under 18 will need the consent of their parents. The logical consequence of this is that it would apparently allow a parent to say to some 13 year old: "I know your life is in danger as a consequence of your being raped and becoming pregnant - but my religions convictions won't allow you to have an abortion."

Here is the police response to some women objecting to this. --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The "religious convictions" thing may be a bit off. Spain ain't the Catholic stronghold it was in the days of Franco. In fact, Benedict XVI once criticized the Spanish people for abandoning Catholicism. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 16:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
The religious convictions bit is not off at all. While large parts of Spain and many of the youth are exceptionally secular the Popular Party, which is currently in power, is very catholic-friendly. Hence the change in the abortion law. So what the law will do is enable the shrinking number of Cathodic families to deny abortion to teenagers if it conflicts with their views. While I suppose it is conceivable that non-religious parents could deny an abortion to a teenage rape victim, such a decision would seem to be far more likely to come from a Catholic-inspired family.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 22:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
All that needs is one 12-year old rape victim dying from this law, and all hell will break loose.
Speaking of this, when did F.A.T.A.L. get translated into Spanish again? A Real Libertarian (talk) 05:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Health of the mother is an unlimited get-out-of-jail card. You can do a (Republic of) Ireland and basically refuse all abortions because you don't see dying in childbirth as a health issue, or you can be like mainland UK where "health" includes "I'd really rather not have a baby -> mental anguish -> here's your signatures". So at least they won't actually need to amend the law when they change their minds. 92.30.49.17 (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You're about a year and a half late. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet another idiot the Madman has found on the internet and wants to propose a page for.[edit]

Say hello to Andrew Dobson/Tompreston, one of the MOST FOLLOWED ARTISTS ON DA.. Here's a taste of his rad-fem leanings(Though he has the scent of fedora all over him.). Now, I'm most likely going to get verbally bitch-slapped by the mob now but hey. I'm trying to get at least one lolcow as a page.--The Madman (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC) The Madman

I really don't see what your problem is with this guy. He seems a bit ernest but I fail to understand
  • What exactly it is that you think makes him an idiot
  • Why on earth he comes anywhere near our mission. I don't remember it having anything to do with well meaning and ernest guys who collate femist thoughts.
So, I'm not bitch-slapping you. I'm simply failing to understand why this could in any way require a page. Innocent Bystander (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

This. I love it when I'm right!--The Madman (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman

I am not seeing anything and I really can't be arsed to trawl through all those sites. Can you be a bit more specific? And what's the deal with fedoras? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
In what way are you right? That's not a bitch slap, it's a genuine enquiry. He doesn't come accross as an idiot. He is, of course, somewhat of an MRA magnet which means that there are a lot of idiots that he has to contend with but I rather like the guy. Please, seriously, tell me what you find so wrong and don't just put another link to a harmless set of comments. Explain yourself. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Aye, while some of his views may be debatable, they are still tethered to reality and sanity, and lack visceral bigotry or pseudoscience. i.e. they are not SJW esque "DIE PENIS BEARING SHITLORDZ!!!" rants about how all men are evil rapists and must be castrated which would reach the necessary level of bullshit to warrant him a page. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 15:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The term 'rad-fem' doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. Vulpius (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Suddenly Jim Sterling and MovieBob are "rad-fem"? Jesus, I feel like every month we have a different fringe group coming here and pushing their nonsense. Last month it was the human biodiversity chumps, now it's the MRAs. --Marlow (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Just because I question some guy who I find to hypocritical...I MUST BE A MRA! Please note that I was motivated to request the page because of this and this. I am assuming you did not know about my home state, so I'm not going off on a rant about that. Ta ta.--The Madman (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman

perhaps you should read what you linked to. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's look in Mr.Dictonary,ok! H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y. Oh yeah!The behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do.See! My point made! --The Madman (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman

I quite liked the explanation Mr Preston (with the help of Samuel Johnston) makes. I feel your rigid use language makes his point AMassiveGay (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
but... but... Andrew Dobson has dared to suggest that there may be a certain amount of misogyny in video games. He must be an femiNAZI. There can be no other possible explanation. And as for MovieBob.... beyond the pale, I tell you. I don't know why we don't devote the entire Wiki to explaining why he and his like are scum, scum I tell you, scum who must be... excuse me while I clean the foam off my keyboard (Cont on page 94). Innocent Bystander (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I never mentioned either of those people, less even knew who they were. I'm pointing out how he thinks it's ok for him to objectify women in his "Lesbian Pirate" comics yet not ok for the rest of the world to.--The Madman (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman

Why would you think we should have an article on this guy? Keep in mind this isn't ED. --Marlow (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Bringing up ED does put his comment, "I'm trying to get at least one lolcow as a page" into perspective, doesn't it? --Kels (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • checks* Waitaminute, this IS the same guy who thought we should have a page on Chris Chan! Vulpius (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Finally,the response I wanted. BYE! Off to my redneck crack dungeons!--The Madman (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman

Tyler?
WTF you doing out of my head?
We worked out the body-sharing plan for a reason.
Now you pop-out without telling me?
No wonder I've been so tired lately. Marla is going to be pissed. I missed the Christmas bonfire because of you.
You know what that means? Yes, we're going on a shopping spree. With pointless consumerism and Walmart and we are going to listen to every membership offer and extended warranty and then we will consider them seriously.
Now, do I have make an appointment to apply for an internship at a call-center with a stop at McDonalds on the way? Or will you behave? A Real Libertarian (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Madman, Both ED and RW have an entry about Kevin Martin... We could keep working on that article. And we still haven't finished the Dead Links Project. But what do I know? Obviously, I missed the whole point of RationalWiki -we're supposed to point and laugh at vicious idiots, then rationalize it because we're merely paying evil unto evil. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 20:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yule Log 2.0[edit]

Add a little art to your holiday, check this action out. 66 different artists with their own take on the classic video yule log, it's great fun to watch. --Kels (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, not only were the ones I struggled to watch embarrassingly horrible, but the web site interface is a disaster. Oh well, chacun a son gout. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Ever noticed the stupidity of the bourgeois, right-wing crap that compares Stalin and Mao to the Nazis?[edit]

Is anyone else tired of the way that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are lumped to together with Hitler as (supposedly) "evil totalitarians" when in reality they were exact opposites? Hitler was a tool of the rich, who put the poor and oppressed in concentration camps for being poor. He was strongly religious, conservative, anti-equality, authoritarian, ultra-Christian and reactionary. He defended private property (i.e. oppression). Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were revolutionaries who supported liberty, equality and human emancipation. Their "mass murders" were against rich people who deserve NO sympathy. Their "crimes" deserve complete support. The oppressed masses LOVED them. They were against controls on sexuality, controls on women's rights and racism. Hitler punished abortion by death, whereas these heroic revolutionaries supported it. They fought religion and killed priests, whereas Hitler supported Xtian theocracy. A perfect example can be seen with the way that today Stalinist and Maoist organizations are lumped in with neo-Nazis as "threats to democracy" when in reality Stalinists and Maoists are far more libertarian than the current capitalist government whereas neo-Nazis are the most reactionary, authoritarian wing of the bourgeoisie. While Maoists call for the end of immigration controls, Nazis want to make them stronger. While the KKK wants to expand the death penalty to a ridiculous number of "crimes" (including consensual pedophilia, which should not even be illegal), Stalinists want to end the idea of punishment in criminal justice and give full support to the 2 million oppressed proletarians suffering in Amerika's dungeons. While Nazis think that sex-hating prude America is "too tolerant of sexual deviants", Communists want a much more permissive view of sex. While Stalinists want to increase direct democracy and give control of society to the poor, Nazis think the poor "earned their poverty by being biologically inferior" and want to exterminate them. Stalinists protest police brutality, wheres Nazis think the police aren't brutal enough. Communists want to abolish the War on Drugs whereas Nazis want to strengthen it. Nazis want to create an Old Testament theocratic hellhole, whereas Maoists promote militant atheism and liberation from theist lies. Look at the website for any KKK or Nazi group, then look at the website for Workers World or the Revolutionary Communist Party. You'll see that everything I say is true - their views are the polar opposite on virtually everything, with Nazis supporting everything repressive and Communists supporting everything liberating. I am tired of the myth that Stalin and Mao were authoritarian and just like Hitler when they fought against tradition, authority, religion and hierarchy and on the side of the oppressed. Howard McWashington (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Troll ClothCoat (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I can't help it! "Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot ['s] "mass murders" were against rich people who deserve NO sympathy." Unless you count the millions of peasants they left dead. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Most of those deaths were unintentional, and the number of deaths has been greatly exaggerated by imperialists. Read the article "Pol Pot Revisited" on Counterpunch. If Pol Pot really slaughtered so many people than why has the population of Cambodia grown exponentially? Most of the deaths were caused by US bombing, not Pol Pot. Howard McWashington (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
"If Pol Pot really slaughtered so many people than why has the population of Cambodia grown exponentially?" It is a non-sequitur of a magnitude so great, that the unit for measuring non-sequiturs should be a "McWashington". --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 23:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Nice reverse Poe. Obvious, but still funny. 8/10, would read again. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Ethics aren't zero-sum. Disagreeing with Nazis doesn't make you right, necessarily.--ADtalkModerator 13:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
"Communists want a much more permissive view of sex." Yeah, Stalinist Russia, Soviet era East Germany, the PRC and North Korea are famous for their tolerant attitudes towards sexual orientation & alternative lifestyles. Nods.gif WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Go say all that in Ukraine and see if you come back home with any teeth. --Revolverman (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do the Mods tolerate dangerous elements in the community?[edit]

Ya know, people like Marcuscierco. Of course, the mods love him(Maybe because he was one.).--The Madman (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman

"Dangerous element"?? You mean "weird buffoon" don't you?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 10:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
"Dangerous elements"? This is a website, not Weimar Germany. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 11:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Because Mods ARE dangerous elements!--Mikal | lakiM 16:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Just as MC was deluded about Mods being able to reform the wiki, you are deluded in thinking that it is their role to determine who is allowed to edit. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. Moderator 18:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
But to answer OP, it's because he's hilarious and has zero self-awareness. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 23:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
His schtick does get old very quickly though. There's only so much scenery one can chew in one sitting. --Kels (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
the mods job is to stop the sysops from warring continuously. The general mob stomps on obvious vandals before too much cleanup is needed. Now if you have your own religion, especially with giant bats and cats please come in and write an article. Hamster (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

SCREECH. TERROR TABA (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Forget Cicero; it's <insert name here> I'm worried about. How can the Mods allow someone like that to edit here?!  What a disgrace! ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
It's because <insert name here> is all mods. They're <insert name here>'s alt accounts. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 01:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't drag me into this! Yours trulyDear Sir 12:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not a dangerous element! Do I look like cadmium?! EVDebs (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd say you're more of a thallium. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Whatever, thulium. EVDebs (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

C+= (or C Plus Equality, Or the FSF)[edit]

After the whambulance wars between Smerdis and some other dudes in the fora, I looked for some stuff in the geek feminism sphere. While not a big fan of it myself (they can get a bit... abstract), I found out about this piece of crap that passes for an article. 4chan discovered the article and the /g/entlemen /g/ot shit done, and proceeded to show how fundamentally broken this language would be with C+=, a language so abysmally stupid it's impossible to do anything useful in. The kicker? It's exactly how language originally proposed at Hastac would turn out to be. It's one of the most clever satires of modern feminism I've ever seen --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 15:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Troll--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
There's a reason the major programming languages are used. They work. If people honestly believe there is intrinsic misogyny in a programming language, you need to leave the computer science field. It's asked "What problem would this solve?" and I wholeheartedly agree. Looking at popular languages they're all offshoots one style of programming, namely, C. Why is that? Because it makes sense. Even such radical ideas as Predication and Lambda (unrelated to Half-Life) are not that far removed. I would actually ask, who has this problem with logic that it needs a new programming language? I read this article and it's sequel and all I can say is "You're writing blog posts about nothing." Zero (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
"This led me to wonder what a feminist programming language would look like, one that might allow you to create entanglements (Karen Barad Posthumanist Performativity)." It would appear to me that a feminist programming language looks a lot like first-generation BASIC. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Or just any programmer's first program. Tons of tangled spaghetti code. Zero (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea why she considers Barad to be important to a programming language. She specializes in something she calls "Agential realism", a post-modernist (RED FLAG!) theory that uses many big words to describe absolutely nothing (but again, isn't that all of postmodernism?). Does she know why such things are not taken into account? --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 19:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
That Barad paper is apparently available online. The beginning appears to be arguing that matter exists. In context, that probably counts as a major breakthrough. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Not all popular programming languages are based on C. For instance, Python deliberately has very few similarities with C. --Tweenk (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's actually a little misleading, to say that all popular programming languages are based on C. Rather, it is more useful to say that most programming beginners learn something like C. Nullahnung (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
It's interesting that I had a conversation over on Livejournal about this thought experiment the other day. And that the person calling it "gibberish" somehow missed that it was a thought experiment, not something meant to be of practical use. Funny; it's strange how a lot of people seemed to miss that. It's almost like they didn't read the article. --Castaigne (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The 4chan parody is almost as stupid as the idea itself. It ignores the actual theory the originator was talking about (which is about the subject-object dichotomy) and just sprinkles in some feminist buzzwords and the word "rape" repeatedly. I think the idea of a feminist programming language is pretty stupid, but if you're going to mock a stupid idea, you have to actually understand what makes the idea stupid. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 20:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

But why is the subject-object dichotomy important to software development? Would finding a solution to this dilemma help developers develop faster/make coding more efficient or easier/actually do fucking something beyond proving the abstract? (Hint: Like much of postmodernism, it amounts to nothing). That's one of the underlying assumptions beneath C+=: postmodernism/poststructuralism and software development don't really work together (hence the postmodernist rethoric in there). --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 20:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It isn't important to software development; that's why I said the programming language was a stupid idea. But it is important in other fields, such as literary criticism, philosophy, etc. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 21:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It isn't important. That's why it's a thought experiment. --Castaigne (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
We agree on that one. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 21:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
If you agree (and recognize that the article in question states as much), then perhaps you also agree that it is strange that a bunch of programmer guys are going "LOL thought experiment! Stupid feminist WHOOOORE!" You'd think they might be interested in a thought experiment. Or perhaps it's more of the unfortunate thinking of certain engineers. --Castaigne (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to the /g/, this is definitely not include any strawmans against feminazis like SJWs say, and its pretty funny especially in this time where a feminist is going to ruin the Might no. 9 game, also what is postmodernism? I know it is feminism and stupid but what really is it?

also feminists are saying that this programming lang is misogynist and strawman against feminazis [LEL] theres any truth to that? [as if]

http://gitorious.org/c-plus-equality/c-plus-equality http://gitorious.org/inherpreter/inherpreter/ http://feministsoftwarefoundation.org/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/19/feminist_software_foundation_c_plus_equality/ http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/C%2B%3D http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/c-plus-equality-c /g/ doing the coding, /pol/ doing the publicity what a stupid butthurt femtard has to say http://blog.mollywhite.net/why-im-not-laughing-at-c-plus-equality/ http://twitter.com/peppermint6789 see this sage's tweets about it too — Unsigned, by: 174.88.34.238 / talk / contribs

Other people from the neoreactionary intellectual movement have already commented on this, maybe we should make an article and quote those people on it? basically they prove again that feminism is bullshit and also talk about how some men who work in tech were fired because of a woman not liking their jokes, all indicative of female privelage— Unsigned, by: 174.88.34.238 / talk / contribs

You must be new here if you think we're going to value the rantings of self-proclaimed neoreactionaries over feminists. Just because we diss on one particular feminist project doesn't mean we dislike the movement as a whole. And yes, there is plenty of truth to the claim that the parody is a strawman. As I just demonstrated above, the original project focused on the subject-object dichotomy and other aspects of feminist critical theory, while the parody was merely a collection of poorly assembled buzzwords with no attention paid to the substance of the project. (I do think the original project is stupid, and would very much like to see an intelligent, informed parody of it, but the 4channers have not made one.)
"I know it is feminism and stupid but what really is it?" So you've formed your opinion about something before you even know what it is? That's anti-feminism in a nutshell right there, isn't it? Postmodernism is an academic movement of which feminism is one part. Read the wikipedia article to learn more. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 03:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of Development[edit]

Have this a read. Zero (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of the post from a programming perspective[edit]

NOTE: contrary to the OP's trolling, I do not believe that feminism is stupid, but simply that this particular person who wrote the linked blog post is just very ignorant about software engineering and does not know the actual meaning of the words she reads in Wikipedia. (Either that, or her writing style is just completely opaque.)

In the scope of my research, a feminist programming language is to be built around a non-normative paradigm that represents alternative ways of abstracting. The intent is to encourage and allow new ways of thinking about problems such that we can code using a feminist ideology. This is word salad. "Non-normative paradigm"? "Alternative ways of abstracting"? Did this person ever write a line of code, let alone read anything about programming language design and implementation?

To succinctly sum up my research thus far I will outline the decomposition of my question below:

The idea came about while discussing normative and feminist subject object theory. I realized that object oriented programmed reifies normative subject object theory. This led me to wonder what a feminist programming language would look like, one that might allow you to create entanglements (Karen Barad Posthumanist Performativity).

The "object" in "object oriented programming" does not refer to the same thing as the "object" in "subject-object theory". "Objects" in programming languages are constructs intended to logically group data and the functions which operate on them. Their main purpose is to simplify the understanding of the code by other programmers and reduce the number of errors resulting from inconsistent manipulation of data by different parts of the program. Objects can have methods (procedures that work on an instance of the object) which can in turn call methods on other objects, so there is actually no "subject-object" distinction: every object can both manipulate and be manipulated upon by other objects. In other words, this "insight" is completely off the mark.

I realized that to program in a feminist way, one would ideally want to use a feminist programming language. So what is a feminist programming language? Well I took a look at the major programming paradigms, the following are the four main groups a programming language can fall into: imperative, functional, object-oriented, and logic. I decided to explore feminist logic such that a feminist programming language could be derived. These are not "groups", these are programming paradigms. It is rare for a language to support only one of them. For instance, Python has imperative, functional and object-oriented features. I cannot even begin to imagine what "feminist logic" is supposed to be, any more than "feminist topology" or "feminist real analysis".

I am currently exploring feminist critiques of logic in hopes of outlining a working framework for the creation of a feminist programming language. How about actually learning to program in a "non-feminist" language first, instead of misinterpreting their descriptions from Wikipedia?

If this is something you are interested in and would like to give me some feedback on I would truly appreciate it. Thank you for any and all feedback. I would love to open up a dialogue about what I am working on and my approaches to answer my research question. Everything wrong about postmodernism condensed into one blog post.

--Tweenk (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This comment by the author is even more wronger...

A non-normative paradigm would be something that does not reinforce normative realizations of what a programming language is. That is to say, not whatever paradigms (OOP, functional, logic, etc) and programming languages you would consider standard (Java, C++, Ruby, Python, to list a few). The ideas is that the standard, normative, concepts reinforce the values and ideologies of societies standards. Currently, there exist projects built in response to normative programming languages and standard computer science, check out mezangelle for an example. In many ways this falls under the scope of critical code studies, as I am asking questions about the cultural, social impact of normal programming constructs. "Normative concepts" in programming languages are not there to reinforce cultural norms, they're there so that 5 years later you or the guy who was hired after you left can actually understand what the code means. The human brain thinks in patterns and programming languages are intended to express instructions for a computer in a form that matches the patterns picked up by our brains. mezangelle is not a programming language at all. It is a very quirky form of poetry formatted to look sort-of-like markup or code.

What is a feminist logic is a question I’ve spent the past six months thinking about and researching. There are not a lot of women in philosophy, and there are definitely not a lot of feminist philosophers, so I don’t have a good answer for this question. There is great scholarship talking about weather a feminist logic can build off of formal logic or if it has to reject the laws of identity and create something entirely new. There are solid arguments for both camps, personally I’m swayed by the constructive theories that would build onto formal logic through a feminist lens. There exist logics that handle contradiction as part of the system, namely paraconsistent logic. I think this type of logic represents the feminist idea that something can be and not be without being a contradiction, that is a system where the following statement is not explosive: (p && ¬p) == 1.More absurd word salad.

p && ~p is not a falsehood in intuitionistic logic, which is a flavor of formal propositional logic. The main rationale for using it is that a proof of the existence of some property expressed in intuitionist logic is always constructive and can be mechanically translated into a computer program which computes the property. Treating p && ~p == 0 as an axiom allows non-constructive proofs which show that something exists, but tell nothing specific about how that something "looks like".

I have no idea how the idea that "something can be and not be without being a contradiction" is feminist.

In many ways the difference between a feminist programming language and a normative programming language would be the ways people go about answer questions with a feminist programming language as well as the types of questions a person would try to answer. I believe there is a stark contrast in these two different ideologies. If you get a chance to read the Karen Barad article I mention above it speaks of non-normative subject object relationships theorized as entanglements. Entanglements exist in stark contrast to the values and structures of OOP. While I think there are issues that could be explored with the mathematics and the machines, this is not where my interests are focused. In part, because I am hoping to uncover something constructive through my research. And when math and computer systems are already so pervasive and useful, calling for their death by fire hardly seems advantageous. Though the rabbit hole that is epistemology and mathematics is fascinating if you ever want to jump in (did we create math or uncover it, what does that difference mean, will we ever know?). There have been successful ternary machines (Knuth himself commented on the potential of balanced ternary), this could be an extremely worthwhile pursuit for someone as it gets into interesting questions about identity, I have just chosen to look at this idea from a different perspective. The first sentence might indicate that this person is unaware or inaccurately understands the notion of Turing-completeness: if the language meets certain criteria, it can express the computation of everything that is computable. It's not possible to design a language which answers different "types of questions" than normative languages. (Unless the author is aware of some new, more powerful model of computation realizable in practice, in which case she should receive a Turing Award.)

"Entanglement" is an opaque term from postmodern social theory (I'm not really sure about its exact sense) which has absolutely nothing to do with programming. The author conflates social structures with data structures (basically, a data structure is a way of organizing data in memory and a set of algorithms that perform specific operations on this data) and conflates social values with values of expressions (the value of the mathematical expression 2 + 3 * 4 has nothing to do with the social value of freedom of speech).

Ternary machines are just a different computer architecture. With a suitable compiler, you could compile most existing code for a ternary machine and it would work without modifications. There is absolutely no connection between ternary machines and non-normative sexuality. I am beginning to wonder whether this is a Poe.


So, as for the last set of questions, you may have heard of the Sapri-Whorf Hypothesis. It was developed by anthropologists and posits that language affects perception of it’s speaker and thus shapes understandings and thought. There is good evidence to support this hypothesis. So if the hypothesis stands, we can say that programming languages constraint the way we see and understand a given problem. I think this observation has vast importance and as such I would like to see a feminist programming language serving programming in general, in addition to academia and new forms of expression. But since the research is in such an early stage, only time will tell. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis applies to natural languages, not to formal languages. The fact that programming languages constrain the way we can understand and solve a problem is actually a good thing. They were designed to do that. She seems unaware that the central problems of programming language design are expressive power, understandability and maintainability. It is very hard to design a language which is both restrictive enough that code written by one programmer can be easily understood by another and generic enough to be highly expressive (i.e. so that it can describe complex functionality in a small amount of code).

--Tweenk (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Aaaaaand Tweenk hits it out of the park. Excellent analysis! Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 05:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I am suspecting it is a Poe. As such it's a pretty good satire of the Cant, and of the cokebottle-glasses view of the world that comes with. As humor it makes fairly big demands on the reader, though. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
agree with smerdise, shows that femenisit know fuck all about what they talk aand "cretique" about, no one able to take feminist seriusly
also have the feeling the user whpudicbok is feminist, whatever, proves how stupid — Unsigned, by: Some Idiot who is too dumb/lazy to sign / talk / contribs
Let's just agree to agree that this is the roofies talking. There are feminists I like. Mary Shelley, for one. Ada Isaacs Menken. Margaret Sanger. I remember when both Gloria Steinem and Germaine Greer were fine looking ladies. Camille Paglia is extremely unorthodox, but I'd call her a feminist of sorts; and she's entertaining, she's the English teacher you wish you had, she can persuade you to find The Faerie Queene by Edmund Spenser something you want to read. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Sapir-Whorf totally applies to programming languages. Much more than it does to natural languages. Get deep into a language and the things that language facilitates will be the things that occur to you. (Paul Graham on Blub suggests you beat this by learning to think directly in abstract syntax trees and writing in a Lisp, but this turns out to be something almost no-one bothers doing.) - David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
So, the whole essay is just a longwinded advert for Lisp? --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 14:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
@David Gerard I guess that's true, I was thinking more in terms of how a programming language can affect one's understanding of gender or things outside of programming. --Tweenk (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, I do not believe that feminism is stupid. I dislike postmodern feminism because of the postmodern part of it. I'm actually a big fan of the ideas of feminism, although it's awful the postmoderns wrap it in their opaque writings. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 18:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This section has been brought to you by Brawndo, the Thirst Mutilator[edit]

interesting videos on feminist at thunderf00t youtube channel— Unsigned, by: Some Idiot who is too dumb/lazy to sign / talk / contribs
Interesting? Sure, if you want into the mind of somebody who doesn't get feminism. Zero (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks tweenk, but I think we already had enough proof of feminism's retardness ;)— Unsigned, by: Some Idiot who is too dumb/lazy to sign / talk / contribs

Python[edit]

Wait, it's not like C? Huh. My mains are C#, Predication/Lambda, VB.NET, Java, C++, Transact-SQL and PHP. Seems kinda strange that a language would go out of it's way to shun convention for the sake of shunning convention. Zero (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a language with imperative constructs like C, but the syntax is completely different and everything is dynamic. For instance, this program would copy a file to stdout while removing blank lines:
import sys
file = open(sys.argv[1], "r")
for line in file:
    if not line:
        continue
    print line
The main differences off the top of my head:
  • Whitespace is significant. There are no braces, the indentation determines where the blocks are.
  • Keywords are used in preference to punctuation marks to denote syntax. For instance, the equivalent of C's a ? b : c is b if a else c
  • The first assignment to a variable works like its declaration.
  • Functions are first-class objects - you can manipulate them like variables (assign to them, put them in data structures, and so on).
  • You can add fields and methods to objects on the fly. In some respects, this is almost like JavaScript.
  • There are only "for each" loops. If you want an index in a "for" loop, you have to write for i in range(0,100):
  • Generator expressions. This feature is incredibly powerful. For instance: roots = [math.sqrt(x) for x in range(2,21)] would create an array roots containing the square roots of numbers between 2 and 20 inclusive.
--Tweenk (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Good golly. I don't think I'll ever be using this... Zero (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't be put off! Python, Pearl, Ruby. Those are all popular programming languages (at least in web development) that are considered to be elegant/beautiful/fun/simple/powerful. Worth considering. Nullahnung (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I've settled into my specialty. C# is my language, infrastructure applications are my style. You want me to turn Windows into my personal slave? I can do it. But that doesn't mean the language is bad, it's just I'd like to stick to my guns that I currently use for my job. Zero (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Sapir-Whorf is fascinating. So is Sokal... ħumanUser talk:Human 04:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Real Academia Española have completely rejected Sapir-Whorf, and told postmodernism to please get the fuck out off their necks, please. This was in response to whether the Spanish language, being heavy on gramatical gender, was inherently sexist and exclusive. The RAE then proceeded to say that grammatical gender is not the same as the social construct of gender, and that trying to conflate the two was a lost cause that willfully ignored the etymology of the Spanish language (that is, Latin, which also had grammatical gender), and that, in Spanish, gender is arbitrary and mostly meaningless. Massive shitstorms ensued, but they died down quickly. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 14:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
please explain what postmodernism is, only heard on /pol/ before and know connect with feminazi, thanks raysenn — Unsigned, by: Dingbat / talk / contribs

Good Grief, people[edit]

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who's sick of the Feminist vs. MRA internet argument. It's essentially the World War I of E-drama (with ad hominems as it's rifles and bayonets, and tu quoques as it's mustard gas); no one gains any ground and I legitimately feel it's mostly pointless. Both sides have some very valid standing arguments but are disorganized as hell and are rather corrupted by idiots/bad apples in them. How hard is it to fucking treat each other like human beings and just assess and weed out the A-holes in our life? Always worked for me. Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, fence sitter, blah blah Appeal to moderation fallacy, blah.

Also Happy Holidays, homeslices. Everybody start listening to RUN DMC, which I will be feverishly break dancing to very shortly. 74.141.89.204 (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

When you're sick of something on the internet you stop reading it. Always worked for me. Nullahnung (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Has a tendency of popping up in places I least expect it to, Nullahnung. It's reached nigh near pandemic status on the net. Guess I should just avoid vidya websites, since nerd culture is pretty much the Western Front of the Fem vs. MRA thing. 74.141.89.204 (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I actually agree. I'm pretty sick of seeing it everywhere too. I won't concede ground for my side but I won't start any arguments about it either. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 00:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm actually writing an essay on why I dislike either movement (mostly the tone and methods). The reasons are completely distinct but I dislike them both. One is for their people, other for their... interesting theories, to say the least --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 21:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, in my opinion the entire concept is deeply weird and pointless in a Derridean sort of way and seems calculated to make feminists look at it and say "huh?" and/or "get a life". EVDebs (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

A very merry Herodmas to you and yours![edit]

Come on. It's the Feast of the Holy Innocents, the most wonderful time of the year. King Herod was always your secret hero.

Merry Herodmas 2013!

- Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, why would I celebrate a random act in the guy's life? I want to know what day his birthday was and then I'll crack open a nice bottle of kosher wine. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? Moderator 08:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Remind me never to let any children I have under my care to play with yours, Smerdis.--The Madman (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman

BTW, today already has a proper name, it's Childermas. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? Moderator 20:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There is the slight problem that the Slaughter of the Innocents under King Herod never actually took place. There's no archaeological evidence for it at all, and no historical evidence outside the Book of Matthew, which likely made the whole thing up as a parallel to the infancy of Moses. --Tracer (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right about that. That isn't going to stop it from being my favorite part of the holiday traditions. In some places, it's another April Fools' Day. The art it has inspired is strange to the point of surrealism, and still somehow Christmas-y. This is actually a completely different Herod, but he gets a number in Jesus Christ Superstar but still, he's Herod too. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin[edit]

This discussion was moved to talk:Bitcoin. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

When in Rome...[edit]

This discussion was moved to talk:Rome Viharo. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

RNS feels like we need an article on this, but has no idea where to start or what to call it[edit]

For those of us who keep tabs on forums such as NaturalNews, an oft-repeated claim by alties in order to dismiss traditional medicine (and particularly when it comes to pharmaceuticals and vaccines) is that there is a profit motive behind the drug companies making such products. I feel it would be very beneficial to RationalWiki if we could come up with a skeptical retort to this. I have in mind that we should write an article about the profit motive behind alt. medicine, and use it to focus particularly on alt. med. offered as a counter-part to things like vaccines. Unfortunately, I have no idea what to call it or where to begin (although I think how much money Wakefield makes on vaccine hysteria would be a good starting point). Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't Big Pharma and Big Placebo cover it? Or maybe you're talking about something more detailed.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 13:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, that sounds like an appeal to motive. Make that an example under the appeal to motive page. ClothCoat (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe shill gambit? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 02:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I feel like we need an article on this, but no idea where to start or what to call it[edit]

Basically, an answer to (and discussion of) the following question: If you sell a customer something worthless and tell them it's worth something, that is a scam. Is it still a scam if the customer requested it, you know it's worthless, and you sell it to them anyway (i.e. "fuck it, it's their funeral")? EVDebs (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I've often heard "selling shovels to gold miners" (also "pick-and-shovel play"), but that can just as easily refer to the legitimate practice referred to in the linked article. The specific scenario you describe strikes me as unethical, and there's a strong case for fraud, but not a scam. AntiDeathPill (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
What is even the difference between 'scam' and 'fraud' here? Anyways, the main point is that if the customer really understood what the nature of the product was, the customer would not be requesting it. To exploit someone's misunderstanding is dishonest and therefore scam/fraud/whatever-word-you-use-for-that. Nullahnung (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
My previous understanding was that a scam involves gaining trust and then defrauding them, but Merriam-Webster lists 'scam' and 'fraud' as synonyms. I learned something today. No matter what label you put on it, though, it's still unethical. AntiDeathPill (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Many years ago I visited a cheese shop in London to buy some Jarlsberg and Gruyere for a fondue. The guy in front of me wanted some Camembert and in true Monty Python fashion the owner said he hadn't got any as it was too runny, so the guy said he didn't care how fucking runny it was. The shop owner said he absolutely couldn't sell it as it was against the fromagier's code, so he gave it too him instead. True story. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member Moderator 22:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, at least the cat didn't get a hold of it. Nullahnung (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I had an argument like that with the owner of a local cafe. I wished to buy a slice of blueberry pie, and she didn't want me to buy it because it was too stale for her liking (it had been in the refrigerator for five hours or so since she baked it). Of course, given a choice between stale pie and no pie, I would rather take stale pie, so I insisted. She finally relented, but firmly rebuffed any attempt I made to pay for it (on similar grounds). There may not be a "baker's code", so to speak, but she was adamant nonetheless. - GrantC (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
If I place an advert in a magazine saying send me a dollar and I will tell you how to make money is that a scam ? If I send a copy of my avert and say change the address to yours and place it in a magazine is that a scam or fraud? Its either a great business concept or a scam depending on your point of view. Hamster (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it depends on point of view whether these things are scams or not. "Great business concept" does depend on point of view, but when you're deceiving people, it's a scam, no two ways about it. Nullahnung (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
In that particular case, I think "weirdly convoluted chain letter" is the best description. And those are illegal because math. EVDebs (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
"If you sell a customer something worthless and tell them it's worth something, that is a scam." Not necessarily. If you lie about its attributes (e.g. claiming it has a function which it doesn't or is made of higher quality materials than it actually is), then sure, you're a fraud. But how much it's "worth" is an arbitrary value defined by the market, that doesn't necessarily correlate with the manufacturing costs or functionality. How much, for example, is a video game worth? An action figure? A T-shirt? A T-shirt with a logo on it? Do manufacturers claim these things are "worth" more than they intrinsically are? Or is their "worth" justified by consumer demand? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there needs to be some kind of common definition of worthlessness between the scammer and the victim for the question EVDebs posed to mean what we all think it means. That's kind of an assumption you have to make when you read the OP. Nullahnung (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I know a pharmacist here in Spain who sells homoeopathic medicines. He is fully aware that it does nothing but justifies it by saying (1) others would sell it if he didn't (2) it stops the client taking something inappropriate or harmful such as unnecessary antibiotics (3) the placebo effect (4) it's quite profitable (5) as the products are quite popular people would think there was something wrong with his pharmacy if he didn't sell them. --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 09:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

'Selling something worthless while claiming its worth something' I believe the the entire fashion and art world works on this principle. Not so much fraud IMHO, Unless they saying it is or can do something it cannot. Anything is worth as much as people are prepared to pay. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Well no, in that case there's a common agreement of what the attributes of the art works are and a common agreement that they are worth something (which ultimately makes it worth something, as you say, everything is only worth as much as the relevant people agree that it is), so it's completely different to what we are talking about. Nullahnung (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, what are we talking about? Examples please. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I thought the topic was selling people stuff they thought was worth something (let's say they thought it was worth large sums of money like a pearl necklace) whie knowing full well that it's actually worthless (let's say it's actually worth very little money like a glass bead necklace), and whether that's a scam. Of course, what we are actually talking about is not up to my perception, but rather the OP's perception, so I might be wrong. Nullahnung (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
It sounded like the topic was some form of scamming: selling something worthless that you know is worthless but represent as having worth. Like, if you sell a car with a blown head gasket by advertising it as "in good running condition", that's a scam. If you sell an ordinary rock packaged as a kitchy Pet Rock™ after spending a few mil on packaging and TV commercials, I don't think that's a scam, since the audience knows it's intrinsically worthless but wants it anyway. Maybe this could be part of our existing article on Ethics or Golden Rule? Leuders (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
But the OP's question (what if the customer requested it?) can't apply to your example, since a customer wouldn't request a car with a blown gasket (unless buying for parts or repair, in which case the expected price would be lower than a car in full working order). The best examples I can think of are situations where a customer might request something overpriced based on a false understanding, like a premium power cable for a stereo, in the misguided belief that this would improve sound quality. There's two options here: sell the customer what they want, or explain why they're mistaken in wanting it. Either option should keep the customer happy, as long as it's done tactfully, and it's basically a choice between making a lot of money off the customer's gullibility (but potentially getting a reputation for rip-offs) or showing a bit of integrity and professionalism (but making less money on the deal). You can regard that as a question of ethics or just a business judgement; maybe a little of both. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh shit, I missed the 'what if the customer requested it' part of the OP. So yeah, taking advantage of a buyer's ignorance or misunderstanding isn't very ethical at all, but I'm not sure how this might translate into an article. Leuders (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
We've already got articles on things like audio woo and automotive woo, to name two common examples where customers often insist on wasting their money. Or were you thinking of a more general principle? Doctor Dark (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, that audio woo article needs to clarify about PCM, Xiph.org's nice introduction explains this stuff very well, and in a format that's both easily digestible and answers the most common (somewhat sane) woo objections. Added to my TODO list. Tialaramex (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ray Comfort[edit]

Announcement by the Creation Science Hall of Fame. The winner of the 2013 Gish-Morris-Whitcomb Trophy is Ray Comfort, Congratultions Ray ! [heres a link]Hamster (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

For anybody but a creationist, that award would be such an embarrassment.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Err, I don't think they would award to anybody but a creationist. That's the whole point. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Even for an award statue, that one looks incredibly phallic, not to mention incredibly ugly. --Marlow (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Jesus man, that is one shitty looking award. Looks like a high school project. Acei9 23:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I now want to get some pine 4x4s, ping pong balls, blue paint, and cultivator spike wheels and start counterfeiting these. Will make Christmas gifts a breeze next year. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyone else getting a "phallic symbol" vibe outta that? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 02:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I see the CSHoF's directors include Launchbooty and fellow CNAV contributor, Nick Lally. They also don't have an actual presence outside of their website and so are probably about as relevant as Launchbooty himself is. Unless he's since bought a generator. And that trophy looks like it was made in first form woodwork class. I'd love to know how much the Mexican artist charged them for that. Wait... MEXICAN artist??? What's wrong with American artists? Or are they all liberal? PsyGremlinSiarad! 05:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Too liberal, nah. Most sporting goods places, the folks you'd naturally look up if you're wanting a trophy made, aren't really all that bad as far as hotbeds of liberalism go. But if they're Americans, they may not be low bidder. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Creation Science Hall of Fail would be more appropriate. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating Moderator 10:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
File:Centrodelmundo.jpg
El Centro del Mundo
Jesus Tittyfucking Christ, I've seen dildos less phallic than that. It even comes with a ruler for measuring! --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 19:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not even an original design. Redchuck.gif Генгисpillaging Moderator 20:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I like that it all rests on a Star of David. I don't like the blue balls much. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
there is only one ball, an its blue. It represents the Earth covered in water. Its not like the thing was recycled from a candle holder ... oh wait... Hamster (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of funny hats[edit]

Are we going to run the Santa Claus hat logo for all time, or just until... when? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

do we have a New Years Hat ? Hamster (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
We do, indeed. And it's a fedora. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. Moderator 10:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Traditionally, the pro-hat lobby insist on keeping it up till Twelfth Night. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I am now inspired to recommend it be kept up year-round. Just like Christmas lights!! --Kels (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Like ^^^ ħumanUser talk:Human 00:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I like that idea. --Revolverman (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
no, that would leave no room for easter, halloween or thanksgiving logos. Hamster (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm flexible about this, no reason we can't switch for various other events, then revert back to the Santa hat as a default. Maybe a bowler now and then just because the wiki feels a bit dapper. --Kels (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
When two holydaze overlap, they both show. There aren't many different logos we use, though. Can somebody remove it? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
It's just File:Rw logo.png. I've just reverted to the plain brain, all should be well when it falls out of cache. WAR ON CHRISTMAS! CHRISTMAS LOST! - David Gerard (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Are Artificial Sweeteners Really The Devil?[edit]

As an avid Splenda user, collegiate cheerleader, and all-round health nut, I have seen many a study warning against using sucralose because it messes up your insulin-feedback loops, offering a theory for why so many diet soda drinkers are fat. But these studies are greatly inconclusive because nothing really clarifies whether it's the Splenda itself or the fact that these people are lily-livered pansies who feel like they can eat lard just because the soda's diet. If these studies are true when they say that artificial sweeteners stimulate your body's response to calories, (therefore the problem lies within the fact you prepare for a calorie payload you never get) wouldn't it be mitigated by using Splenda with food with calories? I never use it straight, it's always in baking or my coffee, and I am a little underweight. So I call upon you organic chemistry types to help me make sense of this. 😊 166.147.123.168 (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody really knows Innocent Bystander (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I question the validity of that source on the basis of their "AVOID AVOID!" marking of aspartame and saccharin. There's no reputable evidence of anything harmful about aspartame and the "saccharin causes cancer" claim the FDA based their ban on is only applicable to rodents due to the specifics of rodent urine. Primate studies have found no such effect. Compro01 (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, there's reason enough to reconsider, when it's designed to "fool" one kind of receptor in your body into thinking it's a compound it isn't. We shouldn't expect evolution to have dealt with that side case very well. Easy to stray from there to "chemicals are bad" simplistic thinking, though. Ikanreed (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I suspect a lot of claims are the toxicological question of dose and frequency for which the media doesn't understand the subtleties. Sterilesig.svgtalk 15:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Imagine a world in which the phrase LD-50 is used and described on news media. I'm feeling sunshine and rainbows. Ikanreed (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
All I know is anything I've tried that's sweetened with aspertame (mostly sodas) has tasted like low-grade ass. That's all I need to know to avoid that crap. --Kels (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I have a hypothesis for why so many diet soda drinkers are fat. Everyone keeps getting the cause-and-effect backwards: it's not that diet soda causes weight gain, it's that fat people switch to diet soda precisely because they're fat. Has this seriously occurred to nobody? Apokalyps2547 (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that there is certainly some basis to that. I worked with a guy who would have fish and chips for lunch but washed it down with diet cola. The diet drink is supposed to say "hey look, I'm trying to lose weight" but it's actually just a smoke screen. Of course personally I just don't get sweet drinks any more, I used to have sugar in my tea and coffee but during my twenties I switched to saccharin (they didn't have aspartame in those days) and after a few years I just stopped and never missed it - I then appreciated the flavour of the tea or coffee. And although I started my alcoholic adventures at ~14 with Babycham or Mackeson I much prefer "drier" flavours. I guess growing up in the 50s sweetened drinks were more limited - two 26 oz. bottles of pop did the whole house for a week and was much more of a treat. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving Moderator 18:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Once upon a time if you wanted the "diet" option for a drink you'd have water, which has precisely the same calorific value as say, Coke Zero, or Pepsi Max, etc. so it shouldn't be a surprise that "I'll swap the Coke for a Diet Coke" isn't enough to make fat people thin. It would take a controlled experiment (which is hard) to see whether diet drinks really are significantly worse in some practical way than a glass of water. For those in the EU, one thing to "watch out for" if for some reason you do care about this -- grey market transfers in the EU mean that outside of the big stores (especially e.g. in a restaurant) you may get served a foreign version of a soft drink which contains a different formulation. This may mean it tastes different, or contains things you think of as "banned" because local pressures caused manufacturers in your locality to stop using them even though they're still legal. We sat down for lunch once in a cheap central London cafe and several people ordered the same popular orange fizzy drink, every can they served was different, some had "real" sugar, some were 50% sweeteners, flavouring and colouring varied. The cans had come from across almost the entire EU, one can was in Greek leaving us somewhat to guess as to the English names of ingredients. Tialaramex (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Surprisingly decent press about quantum computing[edit]

For anyone remotely interested in quantum computing, I would recommend checking out this article on the subject. It's level-headed, sensible, and dispenses with a lot of the stupid hyperbole that comes with most press reporting on the subject. Also note that it pretty accurately represents D-Wave. Too bad the BoN who spent a while trying to tell me that D-Wave had produced a quantum computer isn't still around. - GrantC (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"Negative 20 percent chance of rain" is a really bad analogy, considering that amplitudes are squared to give probabilities, and so probabilities are actually positive.
Apart from that it was a really interesting read and I learned a lot about quantum computing! Nullahnung (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think he meant that to be an exact analogy, per se, since he goes on in the next few sentence to point out that while amplitudes are indeed squared to give probabilities, the total probability is generated by adding amplitudes together prior to squaring. As such, two events which individually have non-zero probabilities of occurring can interfere such that together, the probability of seeing either becomes zero. More or less I think his point is that classical probabilities behave quite differently (which is true, as classical probabilistic computing as a model is still far, far different from quantum computing). - GrantC (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"Authorship is Censorship"[edit]

After this interview with Bleeding Cool, it looks like Shia LeBoeuf has been dissatisfied with the "shit actor" and "plagiarist", and is shooting for full-on crank credentials. I wonder how much rope he needs to get before he gets an article here? --Kels (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Crank ideas about art and copyright? That's certainly a new form of crankery. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 20:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
LeBoeuf is a creepy little moron, who happens to be rich because he was cast in some embarrassingly stupid films about toys from the 80s. He has a long history of antisocial borderline sociopathic behavior across most aspects of his life. Tangling with Clowes might be a career ending move though, he's way way out of his depth. Don't think it can be classified as woo exactly, he's just an idiot who will say anything if he thinks it makes him look better. --Marlow (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Seems more like "artisitic" pretense than crankery. Ikanreed (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Seems to me as though he's just trying to cover his backside after being caught a-thievin'. Balaam (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Time to fess up[edit]

Which one of you did this? Stile4aly (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

THIS was one of the recommended articles at the bottom of that story. Coincidence? I think not. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 14:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Example of black racism[edit]

It's not the climate after all...[edit]

Turns out the current bout of storms battering the UK has nothing to do with the climate, but is down to Elrond cleansing the Isles of those pesky Nazgûl.--Stunteddwarf Jabba de Chops 20:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh ye Phyllistine:
At that moment there came a roaring and a rushing: a noise of loud waters rolling many stones. Dimly Frodo saw the river below him rise, and down along its course there came a plumed cavalry of waves. White flames seemed to Frodo to flicker on their crests and he half fancied that he saw amid the water white riders upon white horses with frothing manes. The three Riders that were still in the midst of the Ford were overwhelmed: they disappeared, buried suddenly under angry foam. Those that were behind drew back in dismay.
The Fellowship of the Ring, J R R Tolkien.

Of course, technically it was Gandalf who did the horses, but he gets too much exposure as it is.--Stunteddwarf Jabba de Chops 22:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

And in not so good news...[edit]

The UK is slipping back to justice only for the rich, prompting a walkout by both barristers and solicitors. For the first time. Ever.--Stunteddwarf Jabba de Chops 20:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Damn it. Last year I spent christ how much time researching this subjecr for a presentation in my law degree, and I have never quite seen a social issue which so fucking patently needs to be funded and protected, nor have i seen quite so many other students come to the same conclusion. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 23:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Today in white elephant news...[edit]

Seems like god hates the Ark Encounter. They've sold less than half the bonds they need to, and even those have to be redeemed if they can't sell the balance within a month.

I'm not saying they can't sell 30 million bucks worth of trash notes within a month, they do have some rich sheep after all, but with every update it's looking more and more like this thing is going nowhere fast. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose this news will give the investors a...*puts on sunglasses*...sinking feeling. - Tygrehart
We can guess that the park... *puts on sunglasses* ...will have a stormy future. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 19:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Who are they allowed to sell these to? They seem like an actual investment (ie there is a sizeable risk that you'll lose every penny) and thus I'd have expected they would be forbidden to sell them to ordinary folks who aren't intimately involved in the decision making. Yet they seem to be writing to what I'd consider ordinary consumers, expecting them to make this high risk investment. In Britain I don't think that would be legal, but presumably (since it's reported without outrage in a US article) the US doesn't restrict such things? What happens when, inevitably, there are millions of ordinary people whose life savings are wiped out? I know we're supposed to be outraged by the specific thing they want to build, but frankly I think this would be a serious problem regardless of whether it was a science museum, a shopping mall or what. Tialaramex (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It would be amusing to see AiG prosecuted for securities fraud, but it would indeed be better if they didn't have the opportunity. I presume the relevant authorities have been contacted - David Gerard (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It's shares you can't trade privately by advertising to the public. You can get what amounts to a loan from anyone with spare cash knocking around, as long as you make it clear what the risk is. There's nothing particularly wrong with what they're doing, just no one is gullible enough to buy. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
What Jeeves said. Tialaramex: Municipal bonds are common in both the UK and the US. What makes this one so "interesting" is the project it's for and lack of a rating. I might agree with you if there wasn't a trigger for repayment if they fail to reach their goal, which would be a scam by any definition. Justbrowsing (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Unrated munis aren't all that unusual and are often used in mutual funds to pump up the yield a bit. But they are very high risk and require expert analysis to avoid buying a ticking bomb. If you care about such things see here. TL;DR version is "Default rates for unrated bonds have historically been 36 times higher than rated bonds...They should never be promoted to a retail audience." Doctor Dark (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Right, should've been a maybe before the part about the rating. Now if you want an area where the US leaves the rest of the world scratching their collective heads, look up municipal stadium funding (the Sacramento Kings being a recent example). It's like Real Madrid threatening to become Real Granada unless someone builds a new stadium. Justbrowsing (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I still doubt very much that the average subscriber understands what they're letting themselves in for. Failure of the entire scheme (triggering an immediate return of the capital) is very much one of the best cases. If the Ark Park is started but then mothballed, or even completed but never opened, you get nothing back. Not "you won't make much money" but you literally won't even see your capital returned. The holding LLC goes bankrupt, creditors take their turns with the corpse and you're pretty much last on the list when even the crumbs are all gone. This only pays out if Ark Park is a big success, on schedule, with no major unforeseen problems or legal trouble. Tialaramex (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
LLCs scare me in general, and I'm glad we don't have them north of the border. I run my own corporation, and the level of accountability I'm held to is significant, to say the least. Someone tried to get me into business with an LLC (after a quick Google search I found out it was a MLM scheme... HA, no), and in the process of looking it up, I discovered exactly how loose the rules are. Scary stuff. - GrantC (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The original idea behind LLCs was to allow your plumber to deem himself an LLC so he can conduct business like businesses do -- i.e. he's not personally on the line for stuff from work. They work well enough for that purpose. But any form of business organization you allow to come into being will be abused. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I suppose that's true. Forming (and running) a corporation in Canada is certainly a complicated procedure, especially around tax time. Then again, perhaps I'm just a bit more comfortable with the dichotomy here. Either you take full liability with little regulation (sole proprietorship/partnership), or you take little liability with a lot of regulation (corporation). - GrantC (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Vicious defamation against TheAmazingAtheist[edit]

Twelfth night was last Sunday[edit]

About time to take down the Merry Christmas banner, ain't it? --Ithaca (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It was taken down a little bit ago. Refresh your cache, sir (Shift-F5 on Chrome). - GrantC (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a reference to {{Holydaze/0107}}, not the site logo. Today is Christmas Day in Orthodox Christian traditions. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, whoops. Shows how much I pay attention; I didn't even notice the banner! - GrantC (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't know anyway about the logo. I'm using the Modern skin, so it doesn't show up on any page. --Kels (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, all right then. Would it be too pedantic to point out that Crimbo is December 25th in the Orthodox Church Calendars of Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, Albania, Cyprus, Finland, Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia and the Greek Patriarchate of Jerusalem?

Oh, I forgot the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Cheers --Ithaca (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

What are you looking for? A gold star? ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

When I worked at an ISP, the Greek guys asked if they could have double-time-and-a-half for Orthodox Easter as well ... answer was no (from their boss, who was also Greek) - David Gerard (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Robert Gates on the Obama administration[edit]

Is it just me or am I seeing different meanings of "micromanagement"? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, Obama was "concerned about the commander" and didn't "consider the war to be his" and was "mostly concerned with getting out". What a scathing criticism. Christ, even the president is expected to participate in the false patriotism parade where every military action is righteous and have an easy solution by believing hard enough. I thought those stupid double standards were just for us peasants. Ikanreed (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
That's typical of a Republican. It's the accusation of a control freak mentality that's intriguing; the impression presented by the media has been that the POTUS is either cold/detached, or that he's trying to Curaga everything. ("I wanted to go in and fix it myself, but I don’t write code" is particularly revealing; if he's the pure maniac that Gates and others are portraying, that doesn't mesh with the "I want to find compromises, no matter the situation" Obama that has made these past few years so frustrating in Congress. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd have said from "I wanted to go in and fix it myself" that he was being characterised as someone who believes in himself, perhaps more than he should, which would not be incompatible with the idea that he thinks he can get history's least co-operative Republican party to compromise. I suspect that this sort of self-belief is very nearly mandatory to become President of the United States in the modern age. Obama could probably learn to be a perfectly decent programmer, he's a smart guy, numerate, a problem solver. But a project like this was never about the programmers anyway, programming is easy, there are right answers, the difficulty was always the politics, there are no right answers in politics. Tialaramex (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
"Programming is easy" is utterly untrue. I mean, the core concepts aren't magic. It doesn't take a super advanced understanding of computer science to write a piece of code. But making stable, reliable software that does what people want it to? Hope you like decades of bug fixes. Ikanreed (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
But but but Silicon Valley says if I drop out of college and teach myself javascript I can found the next Google. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
"Programming is easy" yes it is. Tell the machine what you want it do, then debug your crappy code. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Almost. The most annoying thing about computers is their habit of doing what you tell them to do, instead of what you want them to do. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I would have thought that by now computers should know what I want them to do without me having to tell them; otherwise they're just like a husband. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating Moderator 09:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
#!/bin/bash
# Program is now complete
# All remaining missing functionality should have bug reports filed
- David Gerard (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ken Ham to debate Bill Nye?[edit]

So says AiG. There may be a discussion or two on reddit... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Ken's gonna lose. Ain't no bitch fuck with the science guy.--The Madman (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Something tells me that Betteridge's law of headlines applies here. Unless the Science Guy acknowledges his intent to participate, it's all puffing and posturing on the part of professional creationists. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Then we'll see a "Bill Nye cowers in his intellectual bunny hole!" line from AiG, I guess.--"Shut up, Brx." 05:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting tickets on Monday. I'll see if I can record the debate. Ham made a huge strategic error agreeing to debate the validity of creationism vs. the standard negative apologetic of attacking evolution. "Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?" In years and years of following creationism, I've never once seen creationists argue a purely positive case for creation. It's always larded with the assumption that poking some hole in evolution is tantamount to proof for creationism. The religious apologists admit as much. The "scientific" creationists dance around it. Ham's so insecure in his faith that he can't speak without uttering the word "evolution." I'll be interested to see what his approach is in the "debate". The fact that it's occurring in rural Kentucky isn't going to help Nye. Creationists have long known that you win audiences, not debates. The odds of getting a majority of people into that auditorium who are interested in critically evaluating their religious perspectives are nil, so the deck is already stacked. We'll hear no end of crowing about Ham's win. Have any credible non-creationists ever debated him? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 06:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Nutty, where do you live? Fortunately I live in Cincy so it won't be that far of a drive for me. Just curious. I have a friend of a friend who works at the Creation Museum and he is going to see if he can get free tickets but if not, I am probably just going to pay for them. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 08:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Chicago. I'm definitely going with another RW user from Cincinnati and may pick one up on my way through the Detroit area. Perhaps we can have a hoedown. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm very anxious to see what the crowd is like. I don't think many people have any idea who Ken Ham is. A lot of the news headlines seem to only mention Nye by name. But if the creation museum is selling the tickets, I'm sure they'll be stacking the deck by reaching out to (rather, bussing in) creationist congregations. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Has there been any word from a source credibly attributable to the science guy, that he has even got the invitation, or accepted it? Last time I looked, it was all coming from AiG. Been out shoveling drifted snow, me, so feel free to point and laugh if I missed it. I'd hate to think you guys were paying the museum for a seat to hear Ham debate an empty space. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing on social media or his site, but I'd be shocked if this was a ruse. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
They're liars for jesus, but fleecing hundreds of their own people, in addition to however many people who respect the truth, would be suicidal. I realize they're having trouble with the ark park, but stealing a maximum of $22,500 doesn't seem like a wise end game move for AiG. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Nye debating Ham would only suit the creationist cause - it would give Ham some sort of credibility, if only amongst creationist fuckwads; the audience would be packed with creationists, who won't listen to a thing Nye says, but will cheer Ham's every word; Ham will declare victory even when Nye wipes the floor with him. The only good thing that could come out of this debate is a "Ham on Nye" headline. PsyGremlinTala! 16:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Probably, but I'm not so sure. As popular as creationism is in the US, a lot of the younger generation doesn't really believe it exists. The old sunlight-disinfectant theory. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised Nye is doing this and like others a little incredulous, although I wouldn't be shocked if Nye was keeping mum about it. It's almost definitely a paid appearance and he's under no obligations to promote some creationist event. Even still I think it's a big mistake for someone like Nye. For most of American there are only thee scientists: Einstein, "that wheelchair guy" and Bill Nye the Science Guy. Just having one of them standing on the stage with Ham lets him say that scientists are engaging with his nonsense. It feeds into the idea that there is some kind of controversy about evolution within the scientific community, which is exactly the kind of seed of doubt that creationists are hoping to plant in the mind of the average American. They must be paying Nye a big pile of cash to do this, because that's the only thing he can possibly gain; he's not going to be changing anyone's mind in a Ham debate. --Marlow (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I loved "For most of American there are only three scientists: Einstein, "that wheelchair guy" and Bill Nye the Science Guy." ħumanUser talk:Human 01:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree completely, and firmly believe that the only constructive way for a scientist to respond to a creationist is not to respond. Engaging with them in any way only gives them legitimacy. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
So the debate is "Is Creation a Viable Model of Origins?" I don't for one moment think that Ham will stick to this. It will be a list of imagined "flaws" with evolution with the presumed implication that if enough flaws can be found in evolution then creationism becomes valid by default. Nye should have nothing to do with it.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, that's exactly what will happen. Their thinking is so black and white that they believe that evidence against evolution is evidence for creation. How many CMI, AiG, and ICR articles follow the pattern of A. Attempt to poke a whole in evolution by spinning someone else's research, often by equivocating that conclusions are merely based on worldviews; B. Declare that the evidence better supports creation. Gould got it right:
Debate is an artform. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact — which they are very good at. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtrooms you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief.
—Stephen J. Gould

UTC)

Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nutty, were you or your friend in Cincy able to get tickets? Got up at 11 today only to find they were sold out. According to AiG they sold out in minutes. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 16:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

They said it was limit 5 per household, but they didn't mention anything about church groups. Creationists are much more hyped about this than we are and they probably weren't up drinking last night, either. I wonder how many evolutionists got in. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
My question is, did they tell their people (donors) what time the tickets went on sale to stack the auditorium? I mean I admit, I should have called to find out what time they did but it would have been rather simple to put on the debate page, 10 am for tickets, which I do not think they ever did. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 16:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Nutty had it figured out and apparently got tickets into the cart, but was unable to successfully purchase them before the site crashing while the tickets sold out. I don't think there's any foul play, just a lot of enthused fundies. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You wanna see a debate run on fair lines by our best versus their persnickity worst? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn0tPRjVBvw ħumanUser talk:Human 01:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

PZ Myers understands the creationism versus evolution debates in the USA and he's not filled with confidence over Bill Nye and this debate. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
You know I find many of your edits awkward at best, but you make a very good point. Can someone warn Bill? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
He will get destroyed, unfortunately. Unless he is locked in a room learning all the PRATTs Ham will run circles around him. Tielec01 (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Minecraft[edit]

Looking to feed my growing addiction to Minecrack, er, Minecraft. I play on a small server that I like, but am looking to check out a bigger one. Anyone know of any good ones? I'll send my Minecraft ID if anyone wants to play. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I play 2b2t, but it's not for everyone. Warlord Fred♠♣♥♦ 23:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

ScotlandCraft is quite nice, though there are periods of little to no players.--The Madman (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Glad to see some fellow Ratwikians play my favorite nigh-free crack-delivery system. What nom d'Craft do you guys play as? Semipenultimate (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This is my name. If you see somebody called tialaramex, that's me. But I mostly play solo, and the main server I play with others on has a whitelist policy, for which I do not control the list, sorry. Tialaramex (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I play as "IAmKuriousOranj". Bonus points for guessing the reference. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
is that 'this morning with Richard not July'? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

LANCB[edit]

Okay, so I haven't been editing recently, and that's because I've had a lot of stuff going on (study, exams, job, playing and recording with my 3 bands, that kinda stuff). Anyway, I'd just like to say that, in exactly one week, I am leaving RationalWiki. I might come back at some point, but until then, goodbye. I know that this probably just makes me seem like an attention hungry… okay, can't think of an appropriate noun… but anyway, I just wanted to properly say goodbye, so I wasn't one of those people that you'd look at and go "I wonder whatever happened to ol' Doomy". So yeah. Bye. Impurity is the secret Unite with thy oracle Dolan.png 13:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

So it's more like Leaving And Maybe Coming Back Later If I Feel Like It, like what I did a while back. I can respect that. Have fun! --Kels (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Best of luck to you, sir! - GrantC (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Best of luck. Nullahnung (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
You're taking a {{Wikibreak|study, exams, job, playing and recording with my 3 bands, that kinda stuff}}. Compro01 (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
OK. Luck. But wouldn't it be more obvious for your purposes to just put this announcement on your userpage? Nobody wondering where you are will start searching though saloon bar archives.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I just did. Anyway, thanks guys. I'll try to do a little bit of good editing before I leave. Impurity is the secret Unite with thy oracle Dolan.png 20:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)"
There's nothing wrong with Leaving And Never Coming Back. I've done it lots of times. SophieWilderModerator 22:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Tongue.gif Impurity is the secret Unite with thy oracle Dolan.png 05:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Bye now. See you in a week or two. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not leaving until next Tuesday, by the way, RNS. Impurity is the secret Unite with thy oracle Dolan.png 06:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Come on, RNS, that's not fair. I'm not a Sysop, so how am I supposed to block you back? :( Impurity is the secret Unite with thy oracle Dolan.png 11:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Bitching about sysoppery while LANCB? Why, I'd say that's good enough for me to make ya one! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Shit just got real. - GrantC (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Capitalized Redirects[edit]

They should really go. The Wiki software is smart enough to go to a different page based on how it's capitalized. Zero (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Not it isn't. It gets redlinked. RationalWiki:sAloon Bar <- demo. Ikanreed (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Try the searchbox. We shouldn't have eight million redirects for different capitalizations and fix the pages improperly linking. Zero (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Is this a technical limitation you're concerned with? Like is rationalwiki trying ration database storage? Or is it some sort of personal preference? Redirects are an intended design feature of MediaWiki, designed to limit how much you have to "correct broken links", and I guess I'm not understanding why they're bad. I can easily understand it's easy enough to do without them, but I don't get why we should. Ikanreed (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't deleted redirects actually take up more space than an extant redirect? I think I remember reading that somewhere on wikipedia (probably an XFD discussion), though I can't find it at the moment. Compro01 (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not keen on creating lots of unnecessary redirects but if you're going to delete existing ones you must check 'what links here' & be prepared to replace or fix any existing links (at least within mainspace pages). WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
If they make routine tasks like wikilinks easier (i.e. not having to worry about capitalization), then they're not unnecessary IMO. Compro01 (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
They make the wiki wiki work. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The wiki software does not solve capitalisation itself. This is a much-requested feature, but hasn't been implemented because they can't implement it perfectly across all scripts and languages, so bugger the general case.
There is no reason not to have a zillion redirects. (Anyone claiming ANYTHING about them "taking up space" really should just stop talking.)
What is the actual problem they cause? When do they step on your personal toe? - David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Exactly; they pale into insignificance compared to red exclamation marks. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? Moderator 09:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, capitalisation is locale specific. While English speakers think of letters as having "obviously" exactly one capital and lower case form, the reality on the ground outside of English-speaking countries varies. Because of this every NTFS (Windows) hard disk contains a table of capitalisations which are set in stone when it's formatted. If you use a disk formatted with Turkish Windows, you get Turkish capitalisation rules on that disk, forever, even when it's connected to a US English Windows PC. Windows needs this table because it promises to be case insensitive, allowing you to refer to "mydivorce.doc" as "MYDIVORCE.DOC" or "MyDivorce.doc" without confusion, but allowing such insensitivity requires that it knows which letters are equivalent and that this never changes. As a prank you can create NTFS disks which insist that e.g. 'M' and 'W' or 'R' and 'L' are interchangeable in this way. Tialaramex (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
There are actually a few good reasons not to have a zillion redirects, and they have nothing to do with taking up space. One is the added potential for double redirects (i.e. broken links) caused by page moves & people creating redirects to other redirects by mistake. Stuff that shouldn't happen if people are careful, but the more links there are going through various redirects, the more hassle a page-move becomes & the bigger the damage it's done sloppily. Another issue is clogging up the searchbox autocomplete with cruft that isn't actually very helpful to users wanting to find articles. When I type a word or phrase into the searchbox, it's nice to see a little list of up to ten articles starting with that word/phrase; it's less useful looking at ten alternative spellings or capitalisations of the same word or phrase when they're all actually redirects to the same page. Neither of these should be an issue when creating one or two redirects for very common variants like USA and U.S.A., but let's not go nuts creating redirects for every possible alternative way of writing something. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Cold in the United States[edit]

The BBC has reported record low temperatures in many parts of the USA. Big freeze shatters North America temperature records. How are you Americans managing? RationalWiki may include some contributors who aren't well off and are doing without other things to afford Internet access. If you are keep warm. If you have warm bed clothes staying in bed can reduce the risk of hypothermia without adding to fuel bills. RationalWikians, especially doctors and other health professionals who understand please give advice. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

At "RationalWiki may include" I knew who posted this. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
And yes, thank you, Proxy, three comforters, two polyester and one feathers go a long way when the nights are chilly. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Dressing in layers in absolutely the key to keeping warm. Long underwear and wool socks over your regular undies and socks, wearing your regular clothes over that, then a layer of, say, snow pants and a hooded sweatshirt. Over that, your overcoat and cotton hand warmer gloves. Over those, your hat, gloves and hood. And finally, a scarf or bandana to cover everything on the face except your eyes. That's what you wear to go out in that kind of cold. Then, if you need to drive, you my pack some warm blankets and fuel-line anti-freeze to make sure the gasoline doesn't freeze or that, if you get stranded, you can further hide under the blankets. As you can tell, being as I'm from the American tundra, I've been doing this a long time. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 5:32 am, Today (UTC−6)
Goddamn liberals. Just turn the heating up. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Listening to this interview, the store manager perpetuates the myth that most of our heat is lost through the head (80% he says!) This misinterpretation goes back decades to studies when soldiers were wearing cold weather survival suits and they found that they were indeed losing lots of their heat through their heads....... because it was the only part of them not covered. They would have got similar results for the hands if they hadn't been wearing gloves. There was an interesting study I saw recently which criticised the current fashion for some people to wear shorts and t-shirts with big thick body-warmer jackets. But because of volume to surface ratios, you potentially lose much more heat through your legs and arms than you do from your torso.
One bit of advice that I always found good is to make sure you take off as much as you can as quickly as you can when you go into a heated building from outside, especially if you're about to go outside again. The worst thing you can do is to overheat and sweat. Oh, and don't wear cotton base layers. Ever. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Remind me again why our ancestors thought hiking north out of Africa was a good idea? PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Because for every cold snap, there is a 50c+ heat wave waiting in 6 months. --Revolverman (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
as someone with (or at least looks like it) albinism, I thank Christ I live in a land that hasn't seen the sun in years. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
As a Canadian who used to walk to work twice a day (split shifts), I'd advise skipping the long underwear and investing in some base layer. You can get it at sporting goods stores, it's the stuff skiers wear. It's form-fitting enough to wear under jeans or slacks, very good in cold and/or windy conditions, and breathes well enough that you don't die when you go back indoors. A bit more pricey but worthwhile and tends to be very durable (again, designed for winter sports). Since it's likely we'll see stuff like this in the future, it's a good choice. --Kels (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
As a Canadian who makes poor life choices, this is my preferred method for keeping warm. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 14:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Canadian Club? Going the high-class route, I see. --Kels (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
A baby seal goes into a bar, the bartender says "Whad'll ya have?" and the baby seal says "Anything but a Canadian Club on the rocks." That's supposed to be a joke I think. Maybe it's not a very good one. OK, I'll shut up now. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
"So a baby seal walks into a club..." - I'm vehemently against the hunting of baby seals myself, but I've heard that one floating around a few times. - GrantC (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes... one of the sequelae of about two gulps is peripheral vasodilation, which can feel like warming up. Transplanted to New England, I prefer Caribbean rum. I see the weather service proclaiming it is five degrees outside or -15°C on this bright sunny day. I put my faith in Mark Twain, who famously said something like, "if you don't like New England weather, wait fifteen minutes."
This weekend's forecast shows daytime high temps nearing fifty degrees. (That's a nice ten degrees, to the rest of the world.) At one time I was partly responsible for herding a snow plow around a commercial property, and snowblowing, and shoveling and salting, oy vey. I don't miss that at all. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Still, the head is a reasonably dense area of heat loss and putting on a toque isn't going to impede anything, unlike the loss of dexterity with gloves or such. Go for the long hanging fruit first. Compro01 (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm just doing a bit of myth busting, is all. That 80% figure or even 40% is one of them. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't (and don't) bother with gas line antifreeze. The 10% ethanol in practically all gasoline sold these days is plenty to keep the gasoline liquid unless you're in or near the arctic circle. Compro01 (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I . leave the thermostat at about 68 F in the winter. I open the kitchen cabinet door before I go to bed to keep the pipes from freezing. The 10% ethenol in the gas means I dont use the fuel addatives but my car battery tends to lose its charge if I dont use it every day. The garage is now 24 F which is unusual. Its -16F outside with a 10 mph wind. gloves and hat are essential and a face mask is needed if I need to stay out more than 5 minutes. I bought a roof rake this year in case the snow piles up. It normally snows , then gets above freezing before the next snow, so whats on the roof melts. This year thats not happening. I dont like climbing on the roof with a shovel. Hamster (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Fortunately we're far enough west that we didn't get this blast, but we do have our cold spells. Try one of those trickle chargers to keep the battery strong. I've also found synthetic oil helps a lot for winter starting. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yet it's still near 30 degrees Celsius over here in the Caribbean... --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 16:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly, I've got unseasonably warm temperatures here in Northern Spain, about 16C. (61F).--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Same here just the other side of the Pyrenees. It confirms/denies/proves/rubbishes global warming. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Just pissing it down with rain and generically miserable here... Scarlet A.pngpathetic 22:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I knew it ! Spain has stolen my heat ... give it back now ! Hamster (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Meanwhile in Queensland, Australia, we're getting temperatures of over 40°. Impurity is the secret Unite with thy oracle Dolan.png 22:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)