RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive68

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 26 July 2010. 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>, <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>, <217>, <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>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, (new)(back)

FYI 2[edit]

Watching Dawkins. [1] Icewedge (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I went to see him speak in Feb. Was OK but not as interesting as I expected. AceX-102 03:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Cool, but yeah, I can't think of what he would/could say that would really tweak me. Unless he invented a new term in a new book and toured in support of it, before I read it. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Or if he showed some naked slides of his wife. AceX-102 03:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I see you. Its actually more interesting than I expected, mostly went to to the university to get some fast internet. I thought I would already have heard most of what he would have to say, and I was right — but he really has come up with a lot of interesting examples. Icewedge (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, boring story. Carry on :) Icewedge (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I write like...[edit]

I was sent a link to I Write Like and it's producing interesting results. My Facebook based blog consistently brings up David Foster Wallace (which leads me to think that it really is doing statistical analysis rather than just pulling a random answer like most "what are you" quizes), but my RW based essays are less consistent, giving me results as varied as Douglas Adams, Mary Shelly and (eek) Dan Brown. I might run some RW articles through to see if the style is consistent throughout. Scarlet A.pngtheist 01:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I got H.P. Lovecraft, David Foster Wallace, and William Gibson, none of whom I've actually read. To do an experiment I took a couple samples from Martin Chuzzlewit and got the results Edgar Alan Poe and H.P. Lovecraft. I question the accuracy of this program. DickTurpis (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The code is about a week old and only has about 40 authors in the database that it is trained to recognise. Its "accuracy" is only as good as the number of authors the coder has ran through the system. See the blog post for more info and facepalming discussion about how the coder is inherently sexist. Scarlet A.pngtheist 03:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparently I write like Ursula K. LeGuin. This news saddens me deeply. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 03:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I gave it three samples of Kendoll's ravings and got two David Foster Wallaces and a Charles Dickens. When a program doesn't recognize Dickens as Dickens, but likens Ken DeMyer to him, I declare it officially borken. DickTurpis (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, tough audience. As always, you can suggest a better way to code a statistical analysis of writing style. Scarlet A.pngtheist 04:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I got Chuck Palahaniuk...however you spell it. AceLiquid Room 05:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I also got David Foster Wallace.. Not that I know who that is. Quaru (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I write like Johnathan Swift. Must be because I write about the little people at CP user:Psygremlin too lazy to log in
Oh, fuck. I got Dan Brown. MDB (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
What you complaining about - just do what he does. Take a story, change some names of people, cities and the secret they're hiding and you'll make gazillions. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
"I write like: A sexist racist fuckweasel nerd who thinks women and coloured writers literally didn't exist before 1900. But I loved Atlas Shrugged so don't you dare call me a misogynist". Apparently if you just fill the box with the word "tuna", it comes up as Dan Brown - David Gerard (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I copied in the text of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson writes like HP Lovecraft. MDB (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I plugged in some unfinished stories... got two Stephen Kings and a Mark Twain.... I suppose it could be worse... I do wonder what this program uses to analyze. SirChuckBCall the FBI 19:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Cool, I pasted in a long thing I wrote about amateur auto repairs and got an Arthur C. Clarke! ħumanUser talk:Human 19:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Took me eight tries to get to Dan Brown. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cussing on US network tv...[edit]

You can haz it. Welcome to the 20th century! Bondurant (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. About fucking time! And the concern in the article is misplaced, advertisers will still keep the air-waves (relatively) clean. Quaru (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Will they be handing out Rory Awards? (see also: Censorship#Censoring_of_Books) 06:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
You know, I never knew that the version of HHGTTG I read recently was censored until I saw that link. Did Adams approve of the change? Bondurant (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
<scathing tone>Belgium off</scathing tone> My word, didn't you? I thought it was sort of universal knowledge. I believe he did approve it as it was during his lifetime. 10:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
He approved it, whether he approved of it was another matter. - π 10:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an Adams scholar, so I didn't know. Strangely, as I read it in the The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide bought in the UK, which contains the "kneebiter" version of LtUaE, but uncensored versions of the later novels (two of which contain the non-censored version of Belgium). Bondurant (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I never realized that most rental - and retail - videotapes were censored versions until I read an article on male frontal nudity in movies and they mentioned a few that seemed unfamiliar. Well, by "most" I mean ones that featured mild male frontal nudity, of course. One half exception was my local rental place had two copies of Caligula - one R and one NC-17. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Alright, back to my previous comment. Now that I've had a bit more sleep. He mentions what can cuss now, and states South Park should continue to use strategic "bleeps" for humor. But South Park has never been subject to the FCC rules on cussing. It only covers broadcast, not cable. Cable has always just been self/advertiser regulated. Really, network TV will just be capable of carrying South Park (or whatever) without having to censor it MORE, which they do in fact do. (For those of you not familiar with the FCC gestapo tactics to keep the children safe) And I like the "Who will protect the children!?" mentality. As if tomorrow, we'll wake up to find Elmo yelling, "Where's my fucking bitches at?!" or some such. Actually, if that were the case, I might have watched Sesame Street when I was a child.. Quaru (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
There was no funnier moment than watching Lethal Weapon 4 on telly in the states, and hearing Chris Rock declare "Shoot! Shoot man, I've been shot! That really ticks me off!". It greatly tickled and confused me that no end of violence and gore was fine, but a bit of nipple or the odd "shit" or "fuck" was a big no no. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 11:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
That's pretty much the message you get from South Park; Bigger, Longer and Uncut. Indeed, the actual quote is "Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty woids! That's what this war is all about!" I wonder why, though? Perhaps something about the US having a fairly violent history, how it only has that land because it fucked over the natives (although I'd say Europe was far more brutal in the past, so that might not be right), it has gun ownership that's not only legal but actively encoruaged as part of the culture - so by extension you want to de-sensitise to that sort of thing. I don't know. Scarlet A.pngtheist 18:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Teabaggers objectives[edit]

I can't even be bothered putting this on clogo anymore as this is becoming fairly routine bullshit from Farah. Although the bit that amazes me is he thinks [this is a "coherent vision" for the US, it is a load of patriotic rhetoric and vagaries. Do the teabaggers actually want anything other than not-Obama? - π 09:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately? Um...no. --Tygrehart
Whereas Farah can be dismissed as just another nut this is more than a trifle too close to mob justice for my liking. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Kind of in the same way that the left just wanted "not-Bush". Scarlet A.pngtheist 13:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Many on left were genuinely impressed with Obama. It was the center that was largely voting "not Bush and not any Republicans for that matter". MDB (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting comparison, Armondikov, and you might not be far from the mark in a way. I think the main difference is that though anti-Bush sentiment drove much of the Democrats' victories in '06 and '08, they didn't pretend they were part of some brand new movement; disapproval of the incumbent is always a big factor in any turnover election. The problem with the teatards is they pretend to be a homogenous group, when they really don't have a much of a platform. I guess if you had to define them it would be anti-Socialism (something few of them can spell, let alone define), anti-deficit (only when a Democrat is in office apparently), and anti-tax (nothing new there). Of course the final two are at odds with one another. The left, on the other hand, has always just been the left, who were always a diverse group and never claimed to be otherwise. The tea party will probably make a bit of a splash in this year's elections, but I suspect they'll peter out after that. The truth is much of what they do stand for is quite unpopular by and large. Most people do not want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, nor do they want to repeal the 17th amendment. Deficit reduction is popular on paper, but the ways to do it (raising taxes or cutting spending) are not. People say they want to cut spending, until the cuts actually come, then they cry bloody murder. I remain somewhat hopeful that the teabaggers choices of Angle, Rubio, Toomey, and Paul come back to bite them in the ass. In any one of their states a moderate Republican would be a shoo-in (except maybe PA), but they could lose them all by going with extremists. Sorry about the long tangent. DickTurpis (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The Tea Party reminds me of the protesters at the G20 - they're angry at something, they just aren't really clear on what that is. As a result, they blame abstracts like "big government" and "big business," leaving it to the rest of us to figure out what that means. For the most part I agree with DT's explanation, except that you have to remember that some Democrats are also Tea Party members. Tetronian you're clueless 15:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I think your comparison to the G20 protesters is quite apt. In fact, I understand them even less. What exactly are they pissed off about? Seems to me a G20 summit is just an excuse to hold big demonstrations, because, hey, that's what we do! (BTW, above rant by me was in the style of Vladimir Nabokov, apparently). DickTurpis (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Ha! Thanks for the link, that's a good one. I have absolutely no idea what the G20 protesters are trying to accomplish; more importantly, don't they realize that they are only hurting their own image? Every time there's a summit they make themselves look worse and worse. Tetronian you're clueless 15:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The use of the term 'teabaggers' to describe tea partiers is boring and typically non funny, snooty, Liberal humour. They are a natural reaction to America's first black President and the inheritence of a national media that panders rather than investigates, that condenses rather than explains. I would go so far as to say they are indicative of the steady decline of the American Republic, and its withering away into an unworkable mess that will eventually leave it at the whims of state controlled economies destined for Imperial greatness in the latter decades of the 21st century. 86.40.108.207 (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
That seems to be it. It's very much a case of "we're angry!" or "we're unheard!" or "we're the underdogs". There's something very consoling and uniting about those memes - same reason you still hear them call the "liberal" media the "mainstream" media, despite it being more or less chopped completely down the middle, and with talk radio in the US being almost exclusively right wing. So you have your uniting battlecry, "down with big government!" - "no GM food!" - "anti-globalisation" - "give peace a chance!" (take your pick), which is essential for all mass protest groups, and fill in the details later. Trouble with the teabaggers is that they've been left with absolute fucknuggets filling in those details. Scarlet A.pngtheist 16:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Or my favorite: "no flouridated water!" But yes, I agree with you for the most part on that. However, I think in some cases this effect actually works to their advantage, since Tea Party groups with their own local issues can unite under the banner of anger at big government/business/whatever. Tetronian you're clueless 16:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Tet, I infer from your quotemarks that the mispelling of fluoride (and its derivatives) was deliberate. As recent events in Northern Ireland have shown there will always be a crowd who get a kick out of protesting or fighting authority just for the fun of it. Heck, even Sinn Féin condemned the rioting.  Lily Inspirate me. 17:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
"They are a natural reaction to America's first black President" So is about Obama's skin colour then, BoN? It's about him being a Democrat, or national health. It's because he's black. So, if Hillary were Pres, they'd be no Tea Party? or are you sexist as well as racist? --PsyGremlinHable! 23:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
My God, you are an idiot.
The Tea partiers like to claim they are a reaction to bank bailouts and federal overspending, but it doesn't come as a surprise that they never stirred during the profligate presidency of George Bush. I have no doubt that most of their rage is subversive nonsense, a reaction to Obama's race. 86.40.108.207 (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I think 86 (where have I seen that number before) is completely correct here. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with BoN #86..... about the Teabaggers being a racist movement. Especially if you look at picture and footage of their rallies where depictions of Obama as an ape and racial slurs are prominent. Heck, if you even look at some of the pro-teabagger videos out there (such as some of the ones on youtube), you can still find not-so-subtle racism everywhere. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 03:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
You're not supposed to say that! And if you do say that, you're supposed to apologize! How dare you insult those hard-working, middle-class Real Americans! Didn't you know it's the niggers that are racist? — Pietrow 07:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I think calling them racist is a hasty generalization. Obviously some of them are racist, especially the ones who are more focused on being anti-Obama, but the Tea Party is a large and amorphous group. Some Tea Party members are genuinely concerned with social issues, while others just want to have fun protesting and holding up signs. Though I have seen a lot of footage of their big rallies where racist signs are prevalent, I stopped by a small, local Tea Party meeting in my area and there didn't seem to be any of that. Tetronian you're clueless 13:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Claiming the Tea Party doesn't carry a strong current of racism is slightly more plausible than claiming the Birther movement isn't fundamentally racist, but only just. The Tea Party's fundamental issue with Obama is that he continues to be black - David Gerard (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously I'm not denying that the average Tea Party supporter is more likely to be a racist (since that is exactly the case), but we have to keep in mind that it is a large and many-faceted movement; there's no need to stereotype it. Tetronian you're clueless 14:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Damn, I just realized that I probably sound like some kind of apologetic for the Tea Party - that was certainly not my intent! I just don't think they can be generalized so easily. Like the left, they are somewhat of a diverse group. Tetronian you're clueless 14:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say they are actively racist or in fact have any racist objectives. All I'm saying is that its a natural societal reaction to America's first black President. Just be grateful they aren't provoking a Civil War over it. 86.40.106.233 (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure some of the lunatic fringe elements of the US Right have already tried that (or at least given some sublte euphemisms for it). But the thing is, the more out there ideas have slowly gone mainstream in the US. Perhaps it won't be long before someone in this fairly large, and semi-official group calls for it. I doubt it'd ever be big enough to be an actual threat, but it doesn't take much for some someone to get up on a podium, puff out some hot air and for some suitably galvanised nuggets to just go for it. Scarlet A.pngtheist 18:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Liberals and their faith in science[edit]

I've read many of the articles on this site and I had a great laugh at their expense.

Why are Liberals so naive? Why do you have such faith in science? And you mock us for our beliefs? We're not the ones flagellating themselves in front of Christopher Hitchens (An apostate who is now dying of cancer, divine retribution I think) and Richard Dawkins.

You sit here drinking your coffee drinks laughing at conservatives and people of faith, even though liberals have blind faith in science.

I find it very funny, hence the username. Ha (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad you are amused by the site. We aim to please :) CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
So much wrong - we are not all liberals (I know I ain't one), some of us think Dawkins is an arrogant blowhard and you don't need faith in science because science produces quantifiable results. AceX-102 20:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Obvious lie.
You are all Liberals because you hate conservatives.
You do worship the atheist demagogues, I see their slippery slime everywhere on this site.
Whats more you are in denial about it.
This is a dangerous precedent. Ha (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ha. Self-flagellation is so over-rated. I find it far more rewarding to pay Mistress Cruella by the hour. oh, by the way, a true conservative would never write "liberals" with a capital L. --PsyGremlinSermā! 21:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Ha, your name is well earned. AceX-102 21:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Ha, we also drink much more alcohol than coffee. Get your facts straight. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The way liberals use their crap sense of humour to mock conservatives is ugly and wrong.
Whats more it is indicative of their lack of intellectual basis that they succumb to such temptation.
Liberalism is a joke of an ideology and atheists are their dangerous footsoldiers, goosestepping to Dawkin's drum.
What is clear is that atheists are incapable of independent thought. Ha (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Ahhhh, I see. You're a common troll. AceX-102 21:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Why are you slandering me? Ha (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I suppose that conservatives never use their crap sense of humour to mock "liberals"?
Also I doubt that you can even define what a Liberal is in a way that anyone who self-identifies as a Liberal would recognise.  Lily Inspirate me. 21:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
You are so deceitful.
You are like all Liberals. Ha (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you call it "faith"? tmtoulouse 21:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't get that either. Believing in something that has quantifiable, repeatable and predictable outcomes is the very opposite of faith. AceX-102 21:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Liberals have their mantra's and their mantra's are laughable.
Like 'quantifiable and repeatable'. Nonsense. Magic.
You personally don't understand it.
You hope the scientist behind the tv screen is telling the truth.
For all you know he is lying.
Thereofre you have faith in science.
Christianity on the other hand is a personal covenant between you and God.
You don't require faith. You have total and absolute humility before the Lord God.
I wouldn't expect you to understand. Ha (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
You realize that a lot of us are scientist right? Oh well, this is boring, if you actually want to discuss the issue let me know but this is just trolling. tmtoulouse 22:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Its obvious that cult members will have some cult leaders.
Therefore it is no surprise to me that some users claim to be scientists (This is the internet after all)
You come to worship your false Gods so much that you mimic them.
Its pathetic. Ha (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
"All you liberals are idiots".. "Why do you slander me"? Nice. Quaru (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Obvious parodist is obvious. Show's over, fellahs. DickTurpis (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In other news, did anyone catch this story about plastic antibodies? Sen (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I voted for Nick Clegg. I guess that makes me a Liberal. Feel a bit of an idiot now, mind. Camembert Electrique (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Untrustworthy wiki[edit]

So I followed a link to creationwiki, and received the following message:

This Connection is Untrusted
You have asked Firefox to connect securely to creationwiki.org, but we can't confirm that your connection is secure.
Normally, when you try to connect securely, sites will present trusted identification to prove that you are going to the right place. However, this site's identity can't be verified.

Seems the problem is:

  • The certificate is not trusted because it is self signed.
  • The certificate is only valid for plesk.
  • The certificate expired on 19/02/2009 15:27.

Way to run a wiki, boys. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 20:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously when it comes to creationist wikis, Conservapedia has the monopoly on being trustworthy. --GastonRabbit (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
You're not missing much. Creationwiki appears to have all of two active editors. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
And me. Don't forget me. I fixed two typos! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
So overall we can trust the veracity of at least one of the recent active editors. Scarlet A.pngtheist 18:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

The Schlafly Quote Generator writes like H.P. Lovecraft, William Gibson, David Foster Wallace, Charles Dickens, Leo Tolstoy, and Dan Brown. That is all. DickTurpis (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

...And the CP recent changes page is in the style of Dan Brown. DickTurpis (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
[2] 05:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
what, all at the same time? Totnesmartin (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
No, each separate random result gave a different writer. I'd think with Andy's consistency we'd have a consistent result, but that doesn't appear to be the case at all. I don't know why I care, but I think I'll take samples of writers who I know are potential results and see what they come up as. The one I did so far did not match. DickTurpis (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
It needs to be far longer than what the generator puts out to be statistically accurate, so perhaps running his actual essays through it, or combined talk posts together might produce a more consistent result. I'll be interested to see what the metric data is, the comments board on the Coding Robots blog suggests that it may develop to show these more openly rather than just giving out a single name as a result. Scarlet A.pngtheist 18:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was pretty sure these shorter pieces didn't have enough data for a good analysis, though I'm not convinced we'll get a good analysis either way. I used a longer essay of Ken's and was pretty appalled at the result, but then again, I guess "subliterate 12 year old" is not a writer in their database. I'll see what the actual authors give us. DickTurpis (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Results so far:

  • 1st page of Martin Chuzzlewit (Dickens) = E.A. Poe
  • 1st page of The Narrative or Arthur Gordon Pym (E.A. Poe) = H.P. Lovecraft
  • 3 long random paragraphs from The Shunned House (Lovecraft) = Lovecraft - A hit! A palpable hit! Then again this seems to think just about everyone writes like Lovecraft
  • 1st page of The Cossacks (Tolstoy) = James Joyce
  • Random page from An Encounter (one of Joyce's Dubliners) = James Joyce - another success, but let's face it, Joyce is a gimme

Preliminary results: 2 for 5, not great. I used slightly less known works figuring it would be less likely that they used the same samples to concoct the program. Being lazy I got all samples from Project Gutenberg, so I only did public domain material, which was quite limiting. Maybe I'll check it out some more later if I'm bored, which is entirely likely. DickTurpis (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I felt the earth move...[edit]

... under my feet.

The DC area had a mild earthquake this morning.

MDB (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Obama's fault! Sen (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Well it was probably a fault of some sort.  Lily Inspirate me. 17:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
We also had quakes under Bush the Lesser and Bush the Elder. I can't remember one under Clinton. (Boy, that's a loaded bit of phraseology...) MDB (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


Hiiii

Liberal media censorship strikes[edit]

The biased liberal media at PBS has struck again!

They've deleted a joke Paul McCartney made that... insults George Bush.

Nevermind.

MDB (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember the English comedian Japsper Carrot once told how he was being interviewed by an American TV channel who kept making jokes about the Queen and the Royal Family. So he made a few jokes about at Reagan (it was a while ago) and they got terribly annoyed. I guess it's not too bad if you knock your own top dog but people certainly don't like it when foreigners do it.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Pharyngulate a facebook[edit]

Facebook page devoted to "Natural Therapy" Hat tip It's been pharyngulated so there's not a lot visible - you have to go back a bit to find gems like:

Tony Gyenis Susanne and I are bringing tuning forks and channeling to a whole new level. I am presently the only Tuning Fork practitioner in Canada that I know of working in the 6th dimension. We love the fact that we are working with group healing to empower large numbers of people. We will start in Ottawa, Canada and move this across the country and then internationally. We love the interaction with the Elders and the higher realms.

I've not looked anywhere but the wall yet but a cursory glance around gives hope for more lulz. 17:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

in the "Discussions" there's some really nasty stuff:
Rose Garland Dr Barton makes a signature serum for cancer. Everyone I know that has had cancer and goes to him is cancer free. I know it is hard to believe but, it is true. He is truly remarkable! If anyone has a health problem he has the knowledge or an associate etc who can get you well. He uses all kinds of therapies. It is incrediable the kind of work he is doing. Here is your link http://www.ad2action.com/b/bestremedy/1142. Dr Barton has people flying all over the world to see him. If you have a natural practice and haven't teamed up with him, and would like to get referals from him, I would suggest that you contact him. If you have a thearpy that you do I would suggest that you contact him. He is open to all therapies and will incorporarte any legitamite therapy in his practice.
[3]
00:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

James Randi vs. homeopathy[edit]

Was searching the internets and thought that the community might like this video of Randi explaining homeopathy. It's not only loaded with snarky commentary, but it is also informative on the history of homeopathy. Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 06:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Goonie, that was a good one! Tetronian you're clueless 13:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes indeed, thanks! ħumanUser talk:Human 18:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
May I offer as a follow up, Carl Sagan in his last interview? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
That is a good follow up. Thanks Huwman. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 21:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the dark age[edit]

Mississippi Public Broadcasting drops NPR's Fresh Air for "inappropriate content." PACODOGwoof, bitches 20:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As nicely put by Cieca in the comments:
"Inappropriate content" is a disingenuous way of saying "some people don't like what they're hearing on this show, and their way of dealing with that discomfort is not simply to turn off the radio, but rather to make it impossible for anyone else to hear the content."
A shame, really. I love listening to NPR. ~SuperHamster Talk 21:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you not get it over the intertubes?  Lily Inspirate me. 08:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

ADHD? Have an energy drink![edit]

Someone want to research and write up Angela Brooks? - David Gerard (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Had a quick browse through her site, and she doesn't seem particularly remarkable or noteworthy. Quite a few of her articles make sense, although the ACT drink stuff is certainly a bit wooworthy. Was there anything else she's been up to that'd make her worth writing about? ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 20:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Creationist Field Work: Reading the Bible in a field.[edit]

So thanks to PZ, I was lured in to reading some of the latest excreta of the Answers "Research" Journal. This one in particular caught my sick facination. I'm really hoping this is poe, because I want to live in a world where people aren't this dumbshit. I'll note they're totally out of step with the cutting edge of creationist thinking though. Ha! You still think oil was made during the flood. You fool! Don't you know that Jehova magicked it in to existence? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget! Sterile and Π risk their brains so you don't have to! - David Gerard (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't realise that ARJ stuff was that thorough... Scarlet A.pngtheist 07:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it's mind-numbingly fascinating to here about the flood ... on Mars, and to learn about the creationist perspective on global warming. Luckily they only publish a little more than once a month, so the loss of brain cells can be compensated by listening to an hour of NPR. Sterile book 23:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You money-grabbing bastards[edit]

So, I thought I'd start planning my hols, and thought a trip to the US would be in order. So I phone the embassy to enquire about the process, only to be told, that I must first pay $10 (R80-odd currently) and when they have proof of payment, I may only ask 3 questions. That's just to schedule a visa appointment. So fuck you, I'm going to the rugby world cup next year instad. And no, I'm not bullshitting about the cost. --PsyGremlinHable! 14:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I know you've already made your decision to boycott us, but surely they have a bunch of info on the web? ħumanUser talk:Human 16:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, if you want to get into the US, it's probably easier to fly into Mexico and cross the border illegally. Otherwise you need to deal with about ten times as many forms, eye scanners, fingerprinting and questionnaires that in all seriousness ask "are you a terrorist?" Scarlet A.pngtheist 16:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
There is plenty of info, but you still have to book for the interview. remember the US attitude is "you're a terrorist until we say otherwise". I guess I'm just pissed and the petty bureaucracy of it. And the gall to charge me and then tell me how many questions I can ask. And then charge R1 000 for the bloody visa. Maybe the Mexico long-jump is a good plan. Knowing my luck, I'll have TK and Karajerk waiting for me with shotguns and a gimp suit. --PsyGremlinFale! 16:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually fly to Canada and cross the border. (I am always amazed the oh-so-tactical conservatives forget that the US has two land borders). Not only it is the largest unprotected border in the world or something, it is also the one illegal immigrants don't pass through and so it is even less protected. Sen (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Gremlin, is that price for advice over the phone? I had a similar experience with the U.S. Embassy, when I needed some immigration advice, and the only way to get it was to call and pay significant slice of money to clarify their policy on visiting with a passport that would expire during my stay. Fun. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 21:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Sen, two things: one, you need a passport to get into the US from Canuckistan now, and two, border jumpers aren't just slimy Hispanics, many people take off from the Great White North to infiltrate the US - after all, it's a beauty way to go... ħumanUser talk:Human 00:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
@CR. Yup, that is just for info over the phone, or if I want to book a visa interview. It's not so much the R100 that bugs me, it's the "3 questions only" instruction. That boggles the mind. I can see it now:
  • Me: "Is that the US embassy?"
  • US E: "Yes. R100 for 3 questions."
  • Me: "That's expensive isn't it?"
  • US E: "Yes, what is your third question?" --PsyGremlinSprich! 08:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly Psy, you'd never get past the stupid questions they ask you on your entry card -

A) Do you have a communicable disease; physical or mental disorder; or are you a drug abuser or addict?
B) Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or have been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or have been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?
C) Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were you involved , in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies?
D) Are you seeking to work in the U.S.; or have you ever been excluded and deported; or been previously removed from the United States or procured or attempted to procure a visa or entry into the U.S. by fraud or misrepresentation?
E) Have you ever detained, retained or withheld custody of a child from a U.S. citizen granted custody of the child?
F) Have you ever been denied a U.S. visa or entry into the U.S. or had a U.S. visa canceled?
G) Have you ever asserted immunity from prosecution?

Yes to all? See how far that gets you.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Who the fuck would answer those honestly if any of them were "yes"? Scarlet A.pngtheist 09:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
My favourite has alwas been 'C'. I guess people are still scratching their heads wondering how those damned Russian sleeper agents got into the country.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
"D" kind of confuses me...are we rejecting anyone who might want to work in the U.S.? ~ Kupochama[1][2] 12:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
These are the questions on the arrival card for those on a tourist or business visit (I-94).  Lily Inspirate me. 16:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, then, though it still seems oddly phrased. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 03:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Little known fact: a positive response on question C is how they caught Eichmann. True story. DickTurpis (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I assume it is so they can turf you out for lying on your visa application form, if you turn out to be undesirable. What ever happened to "Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?". CS Miller (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
WTF is "Moral Turpitude"? Googled it:"act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man" Hee! FUNNY Murcans! 03:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Xmas[edit]

Well, I was wrong here but now Selfriges are starting Christmas on AUGUST 2!!!!!!!. so I was only a month out. 02:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Oh is it christ's mass already? You forgot to say "bronze age"! ħumanUser talk:Human 05:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What atheists Kant refute[edit]

Moved to Forum:What atheists Kant refute Scarlet A.pngtheist 19:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Faster than light?[edit]

I have found a solution to distant starlight which allows light to reach earth virtually instantaneously. Hat tip Numpty at AIG promises peer review. (Lovely quote: "A full-time research scientist might spend half a year or more working on a particular project, in order to write one technical paper about it." Tell Prof. Lenski that: how many years did he take? An obvious slowpoke!) 19:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

FFS Lisle, how did it all go wrong? Scarlet A.pngtheist 20:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
at least he promises per review. Oh wait .. he then says "When other qualified scientists with a correct biblical worldview offer constructive criticism,...." hmm, so its a special kind of peer review :) Hamster (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
"When other qualified scientists with a correct biblical worldview offer constructive criticism,...." hmm, so its a special kind of peer review So? What's your point? Are you saying evolution papers are not peer reviewed by other evolutionists? AceX-102 22:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Certainly they are.. So, I'm now going to get a peer-reviewed paper published proving the sky is in fact orange. And not just during a sunset. I will have it reviewed by scientists who already know the sky is purple, as soon as enough of them can be found. Quaru (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
"If it passes peer-review, we will publish the paper in the Answers Research Journal." Gee, what are the odds? Do they reject anything they themselves produce? Šţěŗĭļė book 23:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Ace , of course its fair becuase peer refers to your equals. But are they actual creationists ? ya know , the good ones that PJR likes. Heres the publication requirements if anybody wants to submit something HERE its a pdf file. And dont miss that great article on Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin. You wont see that in National Geographic :) Hamster (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
of course its fair becuase peer refers to your equals Creationists are not treated equally in the field
The rest of your post is assertion and handwaving. AceX-102 23:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is the starlight problem a problem if God is omnipotent? He's the God of smiting and flooding! Sterile book 02:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but goddidit don't move no product. Christians already have a book telling them that. When you're a creationist, you need to sell people books on what god didn't do but was ultimately responsible for. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 05:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you think we could get published in the ARJ? At least Trent and I are publishing scientists (I can't remember who else is) so could lend some sort of weight behind it, and we have plenty of people who know the territory well enough to make up some convincing bullshit. I mean, they're desperate for content so I imagine we can slip something under their parodist radar... Scarlet A.pngtheist 07:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It could likely be done, but I wouldn't put Trent's name on it. Google seems pretty clear about his views. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 13:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Writing a bullshit paper for ARJ could be quite fun, but one problem is whether or not you're comfortable with formally having your name attached to it. Speaking as an early-career researcher, I'm not sure I'd want people stumbling across ARJ when they're searching for my serious research. What if <insert-suitably-senior-academic-title-here> at <university-of-your-choice> finds it when you're applying for your next job? alt (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
So it has to go under the names of some us decrepit old farts who have nothing to lose? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess all this explains how I just witnessed Tom Paris going faster than warp 10 and being at every part of the universe all at once. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 19:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

ARJ allows pseudonyms, or at least they used to. Sterile book 20:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If your kid turns out gay...[edit]

Two friends of mine has established the procedure should they find out one of their kids is gay (they don't have any and I don't think she's pregnant...). He is going to pull out a £10 note, hand it to his wife and say "well, thanks for letting your mum win that one". Mine would be to say "that's nice dear", thus denying them the shouting, screaming, persecution and disowning they were expecting and secretly wanting (what's the point in "coming out" if it's not a bad thing?!!?). A third suggestion from someone else involves going into a fit of rage for an hour before saying "oh, gay? I thought you said Green, gays are fine but I'm having no Green Voters in THIS house!" I mean, what's the point in kids if you can't piss them off in the exact same way your parents pissed you off? Got to continue the cycle of mental abuse somehow. Scarlet A.pngtheist 12:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

But have you accounted for the bisexual contingency? Sen (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
In that case Mum and Dad have to hand each other a fiver simultaneously - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
*nudge*, *nudge*, *wink*, *wink*.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 13:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I shall print out the chart in this comic, and follow the procedure established therein. X Stickman (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Humanties vs Science[edit]

Moved to Forum:Humanties vs Science Scarlet A.pngtheist 19:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! ħumanUser talk:Human 20:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Now, I'm no fan of violent little bastards.[edit]

but this seems to be a step too far (or a fingers to the groin too far). 06:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

The one about a kid dying when three people held him down sounds like a technique I'm familiar with, it's only authorised to be used for about 90 seconds at a time (probably for that very reason). Given what I know of people who work with violent offenders, particularly young ones, it seems less like "cruel and unusual" techniques and more individuals flouting the regulations designed to minimize and control their use - you're talking about situations where these kids are practically seconds from grabbing a knife and doing some serious damage here. Now, I know it's no excuse at all, especially for overstepping the control measures and regulations, but reading that and combining it with stories I've heard from the guys who work with them, the kids are't getting even a fraction of what they give. Scarlet A.pngtheist 08:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Whatever the rights and wrongs it is important that we know about it in an open society. So thanks to the FOIA.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Periodic sillyness[edit]

Probably not new to you lot, but I found it funny. Hat tip 19:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Very nice, although I prefer this one. --Kels (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd seen the "funny" one somewhere before, it is a chuckle or two. But that "woo" one looks like a lot of work went into it. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
What's great is it reads like a table of contents for RW. It would be awesome to have here with an image map linking each element to its article! ħumanUser talk:Human 22:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I axed permission in the comments section. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Can we do image maps in wikitalk? 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I doubt it, but no harm in trying, right? MW does support some html, after all. I'd love to put this in an article called RationalWiki:Periodic Table of Contents. We'll see what the owner says. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I've started doing it in a spreadsheet (Open Office) - just have to convert it when it's done (?) 23:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Yeah but don't upload it unless he (82...?) gives us permission. But, indeed, a table would work. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't dream of it. The link to the converter I've used before seems to have died. 00:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Glad you like it 82.23.208.15 (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. If that's you, Crispian, how do you feel about my request for permission to use it here? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Pleeeeeeease! 00:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
There is a MW extension that allows image mapping. Google "mediawiki imagemap", first hit is http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ImageMap ħumanUser talk:Human 00:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen it, trouble with that is editing it after it's been embedded: the table would be easier, I think. 00:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Not sure I follow you. Constructing an image map is a bitch piece of work, but once done, it's done. Does the MW version use the "full size image" coords, or the ones for whatever size the image is displayed at? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The easiest way is to create an HTML Image map & convert it. What I mean is adding/changing links & stuff. There's a lot on there we don't yet have articles on. 00:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
see here 00:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I don't really see the difference. Mostly it's grunt work, moving a cursor around in an image program and typing the coords into the rendering program (in this case edit page on RW under MW). I did one once, it's a lot of work, but the results are nice [4]. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
KImageMapEditor can graphically make image maps. Never used it, but it seems userfriendly enough. — Pietrow 11:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Image maps is easy enuff, it's gettin' 'em to work in wiki that's the trubble. 11:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Well the image is basically a table so a wikitable seems the most sensible (to me). A couple of templates should set up the internal cell formatting.
P.S. Very nice find, Susan.  Lily Inspirate me. 12:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I've started it but without the author/designer's (82.23.208.15?) permission I've stopped. 12:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I have a periodic table already constructed if it helps, although that was done a while ago, long before my wiki-fu evolved very much. Scarlet A.pngtheist 18:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yay![edit]

Crispian just emailed me saying he would be delighted for us to put it on here. He's going to email me a hi-rez copy this evening, and I think I'll ask him for one that is legible at ~1000px wide if possible so it can be read on the wiki page (reasonably) easily. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

9,000 Year-Old Beer from Dogfish Head[edit]

If you're into beer made from "rice, grapes, hawthorn berries, honey and chrysanthemum flowers," have at it. Personally, I'll stick with Rochefort (when I have the money) or Hirter (when I don't). Junggai (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I prefer beer made form malt, hops, and yeast, but maybe that's just my old fashioned ways. The real question is how did they get a beer 3,000 years older than the Earth? Sound suspicious, to say the least. DickTurpis (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Satan put the beer there while he was busy burying fossils. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 21:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
(E.C.) I'm almost ashamed to admit it, but I thought the same exact thing. Wasn't there a thread here last week called "Damn you Conservapedia!," lamenting how following CP warps our brains to automatically see things from a YEC perspective? Junggai (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems unlikely that could have happened last week. Everyone knows the world was created last Thursday, and that hardly allows much time for this to have been discussed. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 21:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Mislead again buy old earth claims. AceX-102 21:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Those typos keep making me think you typed a cryptic puzzle clue... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking for XKCD cartoon[edit]

It's the one with people on the train. There's a speech bubble saying "Look at these sheep going about their daily lives without thinking! I'm the only thinking person in the world!" and it traces to several people. It's relevant because I'm debating someone who insists on classifying people who disagree with him as 'slave-zombies'. EddyP (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sheeple Worm(t | c) 08:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
That was speedy. Thanks! EddyP (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
it was easy ;) Worm(t | c) 09:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of xkcd, I loved last Friday's. MDB (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
What's a "Fred Rogers"? 13:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
It's a very disturbing sex act. I believe it involves pooping into another person's ass. DickTurpis (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec)The late host of the American children's TV show, Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood and one of the most kind, decent human beings who ever lived. He was a Presbyterian minister, and if Presbyterians named saints, I have no doubt he'd be a candidate right now. Check out this segment of his wikipedia biography to see just what kind of a man he was. MDB (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
So which of you am I to believe? On the one hand it's a perverted godbotherer on t'other it's a respectable habit between consenting adults. 13:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Can I just butt in here and say that this edit makes my edit count all 4's? Thanks. DickTurpis (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
No, and I don't think "butt" was the best choice of words given the context. 14:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Ok, I get that Rogers was a good guy and all and I'm not trying to cast dispersions about his actual character by what I'm about to say, but don't any of you think it even slightly weird that a person in a position to be a world-class pediofile has the middle name "McFeely"? I really mean no offense, but his name was "McFeely." It is just one of those things. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 23:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

10 Scary Things from Republican Party State Platforms[edit]

or, perhaps, Conservapedia's 'Things to do' list. MDB (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Bartop revamp[edit]

There's talk of clearing up some of the clutter at the top of this page. See discussion here. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

cover story abstracts[edit]

I wasn't very involved in creating these, and I forgot where it was being discussed. Anyway, I got up today to find a copy of the main page on my laptop, who knows why. The cover story abstract on it was poorly written and had an embarrassing typo/misspelling. So I went to the article and pretty much copied its lead into the abstract. I thought that was how they were made, since any "gold" level article should have a pretty high quality lead, one would think. So, anyway, anyone want to work with me on going through these to make sure the low-quality one I found was just a fluke? Or at least remind me where the "workplace" is for these? Kthxbai. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think they're mostly fine. Obviously you're free to check them over, I tend to buzz through them every time I see one on the main page (it's the inconsistent images that are what strike me usually). Scarlet A.pngtheist 16:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
They're all visible in Main_Page/Testing_area if people haven't seen that page. Scarlet A.pngtheist 16:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I went through them too a coupla months ago, rewriting a lot of the abstracts, and sometimes copied the abstract to become the article lead. Consider both directions or a merger. Whatever works - David Gerard (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks folks, I appreciate the link and comments. I was just knocked a little off-base when I saw the one I fixed. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm up to "B" and finding a lot of embarrassing... sorry guys, some of these really suck. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, well you hate everything on this wiki so I'm not surprised. Scarlet A.pngtheist 11:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
That is not true, he just hates everything new. When it becomes old and people want to fix/improve/changes it, then he like it and defends it against the change. - π 12:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm just finding a few too many grammatical/spelling/typo errors for my liking. One wasn't even an accurate description of the topic. I realize it was important to get them all done so the new system could be implemented, but I suspect there was some rushwork going on. Oh well, it's a wiki, anyone can fix... ħumanUser talk:Human 15:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Well that's the point, it's a wiki and you can correct it. You don't have to belittle people for their honest mistakes in the process. Scarlet A.pngtheist 19:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It is the main page we are talking about. The expectation of quality editing - and careful proofreading - is higher. By the way, I edited the Testing area so each summary is preceded by a direct link to it. Hmmm, come to think of it, it could use a TOC as well... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Slightly more difficult as it doesn't use headers. I'll just put it in manually. Scarlet A.pngtheist 10:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Why not just make the links I added into headers? Seems like the least amount of work. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

CP namespace cleanup[edit]

Out of boredom I've been going through the CP namespace for lulz, and decided to clean it up... it's lacking a lot of consistency, and a lot of articles are in a terrible state. There's also a large number of articles which I feel can be deleted, such as this one. Shall I just go through and delete them on sight (afterall, they can be restored) or is there a process i should adhere to? I'm confident that nobody will object to the deletions I intend to make. There are yet more I would think can be deleted but they might be contentious, so I'll start talk page comments for those ones. ONE / TALK 17:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with CP namespace is that things happen so rapidly at CP that WIGO is pretty much the only way to document them consistently. Sometimes people feel inspired to write more on a CP subject & it becomes a CP space article, but unless they make a real effort to update it periodically, it starts looking outdated & abandoned pretty soon. Most CP space articles, except for high profile ones like the ones about senior admins, capture CP at one particular point in time, like a (Ass)fly in amber. RWW suffers the same problem. It might be worth separating the CP space articles into a few high priority ones which should be brought up to date & kept up to date, & others which probably won't be updated but could be tagged with a template explaining that they show events at CP at one particular time & are preserved for historical interest. The real trash could be deleted, but should probably be discussed first. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I think many of them can be cleaned up, for example, if we have duplicate articles in the mainspace and then a CP-space one merely documenting the interpretation of the subject on Conservapedia, it's unnecessary. We need to get away from CP-centrism so for the most part they won't be missed. Scarlet A.pngtheist 18:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Might I suggest a "cpstub" template for the dustier ones? ħumanUser talk:Human
There are some that are simply never going to be expanded upon or brought up to date though, like the example in the OP. I know it's not up to me, but I'd rather just trim the namespace down to the content that is either informative or amusing. ONE / TALK 08:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's kind of up to everyone who wants to stick in their oar. As you've gone through it and sorted it, it would be the best place to start from and lead the charge. Scarlet A.pngtheist 10:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm good point. Well as I said, anyone can restore articles whose deletion they disagree with. I'll justify each deletion as best as possible in the deletion reason. ONE / TALK 11:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you mind if I put one minor hurdle in your way? I don't want to prevent or slow down a worthwhile cleanup, but how about posting a list of proposed deletions here, say, and then allowing a couple three days for anyone who cares to defend or improve any given article (or add to the list)? ħumanUser talk:Human 16:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Oooh good idea. I would prefer that to the deletion template actually. I'll work on it. ONE / TALK 16:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the CP namespace has a lot of dusty stuff in it. Some articles have real historical importance and should be marked as representing things as they were at some particular point in the past. Some such articles really need to be update to reflect that 'someone' has gone through and systematically oversighted references on CP for which there aren't captures. I'm not aware of what specifically people would say needs to be deleted so I think the delete template should stick for longer than 3 days tho - not everyone inclined to take a stand on these things checks in that often. I'd suggest adding a delete template that notes the item will be mothballed at some indeterminate point in the future so that we can inventory the duds and get a better handle on what all there is and come up with a coherent project so people with interest can have a chance to participate and this doesn't end up being an indiscriminate delete-spree. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 17:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Well put. I would still like to see a list if someone adds a whole bunch of delete templates though. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

RationalWiki foundation, last chance for feedback (reprise)[edit]

Trent originally made this thread which was archived. I think I figured out what this is the last chance for: All the bylaws are amendable by majority vote of the board, just as they are amendable by Trent now. But the Trustees may be less inclined to relinquish power, once they have it, therefore this may be our last change for the following:

  • To say we want Trent to maintain more power (so long as he is willing and able).
  • To say how many people should (initially) be Trustees.
  • To say how the (initial) voting should be done.

Also, due to the typical inertia of precedent/tradition, these things may never change if the proposal is not changed before the first election.

See the talk page of the proposed bylaws.

~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 20:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Trustees won't have power, but they will have responsibility. This makes it considerably different to most "positions" in RW where there is a lot of power but no incentive to be responsible for it. There wouldn't be any power for the trustees to "give up" as they won't actually do anything in particular. Scarlet A.pngtheist 22:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
But who will control the means of production? Surely the valiant proletariat must arise and wrest command of the wiki from the authoritarian clutches of these bourgeois trustee swine. ¡Tierra y Libertad! WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Lumenos, ... , ... , oh, why do I bother? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems you assume there will never be a major dispute, but I am thinking loooong term, like 100-1000 years from now. Shit happens and maybe RationalWiki will be around in a 1000 years, who knows? ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 05:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Simple question: Let's say there are some strong disagreements and ten bureaucrats vote and decide to de-crat five other bureaucrats. The Trustees vote to undo this situation and they re-crat the five and de-crat the ten. Wouldn't the Trustees be legally and technically able to do this? If not, please explain what would stop them. Would they not have the necessary "password" to change user rights by direct server access? ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 05:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
You really have no clue, do you? The trustees will not be involved in the day-to-day activities of the site. And they won't have server access. You sorely try my patience with your confusion. Your "example" of cratting wars could happen today. Luckily the Lawful Jewels could resolve such silliness. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I guess I should have asked instead of assuming the owner of the server would have access to it. Unless Lawful Jewels has server access I don't see what they could do if they were all de-crated in the above scenario. ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 06:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The foundation is "meta" it is designed to oversee the running of things in a really general way. The day-to-day type stuff that you are focused on will be handled by people who the board hires. To make a vivid, though loose, analogy, the board of directories of Pepsi doesn't care who gets the night shift at your local Taco Bell. tmtoulouse 06:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice analogy, Trent. Although it makes me worry about the paradigm of your diet... ħumanUser talk:Human 07:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that analogy is... erm, special... but it's true, the board are likely to be identified clearly, but very unlikely to be placed in a special usergroup. Indeed, there's nothing in particular that says they need to be an extremely active editor, e.g., we could have AmesG or PalMD join the board - although that would be preferable for them to be currently active in editing the wiki for numerous pracitcal reasons, such as being up do date with the latest happening. Although I'm not sure if the board would have official overarching, any power over potential content disputes, particularly over slander or copyright infringement as it would be the board's responsibility to deal with that. I expect they wouldn't, but RW editors would be stupid not to take on board their suggestions and opinions regarding these matters; and if the majority of crats and users end up actively opposing the board in such matters, then things have gone bad probably beyond repair. Scarlet A.pngtheist 10:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I put in bold a simple question above. I still don't know the answer. It seems like Trent answers the simple question with "yes". If the Board is charged with hiring and firing everyone else, it sounds as though they have ultimate authority. For example, maybe the Trustees don't "have" server access themselves but they would have legal authority to fire a person with server access, if s/he doesn't undo a "rebellion" of a majority. I suppose rebellions of this sort are much less likely for Taco Bell employees, so the analogy is a little stretched. Human replied, "[y]our "example" of cratting wars could happen today. Luckily the Lawful Jewels could resolve such silliness." So I asked a follow up question, "What does Lawful Jewels do if they all get de-cratted?" Human claims the Trustees will not have "server access". Perhaps there is a sort of balance of power in that the Foundation has "legal authority" but does not actually have the means to enforce their legal power therefore someone with the necessary skills, "passwords", or the physical access to the server, could veto a decision of the RationalWiki Foundation? I would like to know who ultimately controls rationalwiki.nom.pw (if there is crat war). ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 11:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I propose that if a huge fight breaks out and the site descends into anarchy with a massive crat war and the Lawful Jewels being chased out of town, I fly to Trent's apartment, get the server, and hit Lumenos over the head with it - there by ending any need for anyone to care as the site will be off-line. - π 12:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Lumenos seems to misunderstand the point of crats and almost the entire point of the LJ. The former is not a special position, it is there for adding the sysop status to new users and essentially just means "I've been here a while". It holds no position of authority or responsibility. Indeed, the user group doesn't give anyone any extra access - bar the ability to check what has been oversighted from BONs/users/sysops on grounds of breech of privacy, but as crats are trusted users, that's acceptable. What Lumenos is describing is no different to what can happen now if someone with server access abuses that trust. Ultimately, and for the forseeable future, Trent is the one with sole physical access to the machine so has ultimate control over everything. In the future, the board will appoint an individual with that responsibility and, for the forseeable future, that is going to be Trent. An issue in 6 months time (you may as well ask what happens to RW.org in the event of an alien invasion) will be dealt with in the same manner as in issue in 6 minutes time. Scarlet A.pngtheist 12:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
With regards the questions from Lumenos, I think what he described is pretty much the HCM to end HCM situation in which RW dies or becomes the personal toy of one or more people. In such a situation there'd be little reason to hang around, and I imagine a fork would be the preferred option. We'll have access to a dump of the content from here, and the licensing would generally allow anyone to rebuild RW in a new home home. As Arm said, this could happen now, but it's fairly unlikely given that the people with access to cause that kind of damage are generally harmless or at least drawing the line at actions that really would kill the site. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 12:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I know all that. What I want to know is which side of the fork would get the domain rationalwiki.nom.pw. I thought that would be the side with the majority of Trustees, but Human tells me they would not have "server access" and seemed to imply the Lawful Jewels would have server access. ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 12:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm, interesting question. This is why we should not discount the idea of throwing the server at people out of hand. - π 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Everything that there is to own, will be owned by the Foundation. This is run by the trustees. The LJ is nothing more than a conflict resolution system; it wouldn't decide who keeps the domain name in the case of a "breakup", it would always stay with the Foundation, which is ran by the Trustees. The Foundation is the equiverlent of a new indiviudal, a separate entity - this is, in fact, the entire point - and is only represented/ran by Trustees. The Trustees don't necessarily get server access, and those with server access aren't necessarily Trustees (although an overlap will be probably, and likely would be useful). Those with server access will be appointed by whoever is technical director of the site, this TD is appointed by the Trustees. It will most likely be Trent for the forseeable future. The LJ has nothing to do with it in any way shape or form. In the likely event that Trustees disagree, then they can squabble amongst themselves to solve their issues. This wouldn't affect the site as it would be owned and supported by The Foundation, not the individual Trustees. If those with server access abuse their powers and trust, they can be reprimanded by the technical director. Scarlet A.pngtheist 14:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Carl Zimmer and the Lenski affair[edit]

Carl Zimmer talks about the Lenski affair at his blog. (It starts around 24 minutes in the video: [5].... and RationalWiki is a citation on his slides!) Sterile book 00:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice find Penis pie! I'll watch later. AceX-102 00:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyone seen a transcript? I've grabbed some of it File:Zimmer 01.pngFile:Zimmer 02.pngFile:Zimmer 03.png 02:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Those images don't seem to convey much. Also the copyright notice... um, no. We don't own them. We stole them. We must now delete them. Unless we get permission. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have no idea what he actually said but "posted the lecture at their site, where you can also download it in various formats" If that isn't the OK to use it, I don't know what is. The copyright notice wants changing, I'll grant. One shows that he's talking about CP & t'other two have our web address on them. This has gotta be worthy of notice? 04:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Oh, it's worthy of notice, yes. But "download" =/= "republish under your own copyright". ħumanUser talk:Human 05:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair use it IMO. tmtoulouse 05:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Can't imagine he'd mind though. AceX-102 05:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Permission is always a joy to receive when asked for politely. Fair use, sure, but permission is so much wetter. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Human, and we can't automatically presume that people "won't mind". Also we should watch how we apply "fair use", it's not just using something that we think is relevant to our site. If it's not for parody or ridicule then it should be used constructively with due reference to the original author.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
"Fair use" is a legal defence (and one that applies only in the US at that), not a reason for copyright infringement. If you assume that the author "won't mind" then track down some contact details and ask. As Human says, it's a joy to recieve permission for that sort of thing, not least because it puts the site in good standing. Scarlet A.pngtheist 10:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It would probably be best to use or contact the American Society of Microbiology as the source, since is the original. Sterile book 12:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Who's a good broadband provider?[edit]

...in the UK? Totnesmartin (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Zen or Andrews & Arnold. Run by geeks, fiercely freedom-loving. I use Zen and pay about £5/mo over the going rate for superlative service; if I wasn't with them I'd use A&A - David Gerard (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Talk Talk, of course... but seriously, there are decent deals. If you want to go more mainstream, O2 do a pretty good service that I've had no problems with, and it's half price if you have an O2 phone so I get mine for about £7 a month. Scarlet A.pngtheist 13:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I've got O2 too on the same terms. I also have 3 on a dongle but that's limited - forget how many gigs & twice as much (£15) as the O2 too, it's also slow. 23:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Talk Talk/Carphone Whorehouse have been getting a good rep lately for standing up to the DE Act. O2/Be use the IWF Cleanfeed, Zen/A&A flatly refuse to. I love Zen for customer service such as, when I moved house and needed my broadband to do the weekend's on-call not on dialup, implying to BT that if I didn't get hooked up immediately THE WHOLE BBC MIGHT GO OFF AIR! And I was hooked up in short order. That's what I call customer service ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
THE WHOLE BBC MIGHT GO OFF AIR - maybe, would anybody have known the difference if they did? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, because then you'd be stuck with ITV, and a cursory glance at the content of ITV player makes you think we'd be in the shit if it wasn't for the BBC (pbuh). Scarlet A.pngtheist 14:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I use PlusNet, who are very god and I haven't had any problems with. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice typo. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Bugger. Must stop this drunken wiki editing. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I dunno, "who is/are very god and I haven't had any problems with." seems meme-worthy to me... ħumanUser talk:Human 16:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
BT and Virgin are the two I know of. BT I take it is the British "Ma Bell" and if Virgin over there is anything like Virgin Mobile in the US there's a reason it's Virgin. There's a few satelitte ISPs that offer worldwide service and probably bypass your government nanny filter but the latency is so bad you'll never make it past somebody's firewall. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Try WORLDSKIES if latency is not an issue for you. It's a global provider of satelitte internet and will probably never have to cave to the IWF. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Self explanatory.[edit]

...or why you'll never change entrenched opinion. 82.23.208.15 (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire?mode=PF

On a slightly related note the Jam Experiment (original paper [http://www.columbia.edu/~ss957/articles/Choice_is_Demotivating.pdf here) shows that we tend not to make decisions when there is too much choice.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't live in interesting times.[edit]

I've been reading the Newgate Calendar off and on over the past week or so. Definitely one to read your kids as a bed time story. However, it makes me sad to conclude we live in an age where criminals just aren't doing interesting crimes any more. Not only are we civilised to the point where there is less crime, and more detection, but that the things criminals do now are just boring. Clearly, the world needs an evil genius to organise the underworld to entertain the law abiding world once again. Any volunteers? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 07:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the downsides of democratic government is that there is a tendency for perpetual legislation which only increases the number of crimes, often for petty bureaucratic infringements. Revolutions often throw out the rule book but in the UK we haven't really had a "proper" revolution and have ended up with a millennium's worth of legislation. One of the suggestions on the UK Government's website was to repeal ALL legislation and start again, which quite appealed to me. It won't happen so in the meantime I shall eschew my compulsory weekly archery practice with impunity.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I saw that one... nicely naive. I think it said something like "replace all laws with 'be nice' and 'do no harm'", yeah, the comments alone on it shredded that one pretty quick. It's not workable in a practical sense or even desirable - I mean, you want to start again on all laws, try to work them out from scratch, and fuck it all up in a new and original way? Scarlet A.pngtheist 10:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Not true, Jeeves. There are interesting criminals out there.--ADtalkModerator 13:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I would volunteer put I'm in enough trouble already. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

UFO[edit]

Another sighting [6]. Any ideas? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What's this "another"? Where's the first? AceX-102 08:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Alright, another alleged sighting. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a perfectly real sighting of a UFO to me. ONE / TALK 09:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
There was also this spiral over Norway but I wonder if it is related to noctilucent clouds which are allegedly visible this week?  Lily Inspirate me. 10:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Ideas? What about "MSN are morons"? The video is from a Russian rocket launch over Kyrgyzstan on 30 June: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21562.15 Note the date of this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yo8f7fQFO8
The Norwegian spiral most probably was a failed Russian ballistic missile test. Too lazy to dig links at the moment, you can start from Wikipedia.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
ZooGuard is right Lily. A similar spiral was seen by many observers in Oz recently. It was just a Falcon 9 rocket.--Brendiggg (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but who's to say it was a Falcon 9 rocket... from Earth????? Please, open your mind, for your sake. ONE / TALK 11:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am an Unidentified Flying Object. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi All[edit]

can someone around here change my name to Ex-Troll Cheerleader? i haven't been around much because i'm at cheerleading camp. Cheerleader Not Troll (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You should now have the new name. It's my first time doing a rename, so let me know if you experience any odd side effects - such as problems logging in or a burning sensation. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 17:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Damn you, I think my poms just changed colors! :P Actually I'm quite honoured I was your 1st one. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
My pleasure. I hope cheerleader camp went well. The world needs more properly trained and focussed cheerleaders. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 19:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh thanks

. I'm actually still there editing from my phone. It's an old flip phone but I'm a textaholic so this is nothing. (Battery dies, response is delayed) Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone kill any frogs lately? 64.255.164.15 (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Breitbart tries another ACORN stunt and fails[edit]

EPIC FAIL. EVEN GLENN FUCKIN' BECK IS AGAINST YOU ANDY B!

On a related note, one of the ACORN employees fired because of O'Keefe and his ho is pressing charges against them. FINALLY. Please let this stick--Thanatos (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What a bunch of douchebagz. ACORN is an appropriate name for these idiots because their a bunch of nuts and I'm glad you see that. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
ETC, do you even know what this is about? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Not really, just know that ACORN was stupid to support Obama as they did. Then again, it wouldn't have been any better if Republicans had would have won because they all just cater to themselves and the rich people that give them money to campaign with. I'm what you would call an anarchist. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Shall I? Breitbart hired James O'Keefe to do work for him. O'Keefe came up with heavily doctored videos of him and his associate Hannah Giles talking with ACORN employees. The edited tapes show the employees helping O'Keefe (a pimp) and Giles (a prostitute) with illegal activities such as prostitution of foreign underage girls and tax evasion. They took these tapes to FOX news, who promoted them relentlessly. Soon the rest of the media followed suit. Investigations showed the tapes were heavily edited and were recorded illegally. Republicans hated ACORN because it helped poor families stick up to banks by offering service such as tax/legal advice.
O'Keefe is the worst kind of conservative hellraiser. All he does is manufacture scandals against the left. He has done so since college. The far right loves him while the everyone else denounces him, even though alot of people fell for his ACORN and Planned Parenthood scams. Kinda like Roy Cohn (Citizen Cohn is my next film review, look out for it!)--Thanatos (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
ACORN didn't "support" Obama. They worked during elections to help people vote. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Link Fox News 24 hrs of the story--Thanatos (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
And that's why you should never take someone else's word for it. The republicans and democrats are bad because they make decisions based on their own views. They're supposed to represent the people's wishes, not their party's. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Somehow this cartoon seems appropriate right now. DickTurpis (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
DickT ftw! ħumanUser talk:Human 05:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this strange?[edit]

I really can't wait for Kim Jong-Il to die. I'm ridiculously curious as to what will happen. Fight between the sons? Will one of the senior party members make a bid? EddyP (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not strange to want to see a dictator die, they deserve it. What is strange is that it seems you only want some sort of political spectacle instead of the freedom of North Korea. :P jk. If anybody is interested they should read [this] NetharianCubicles are prisons! 21:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say dictators deserve to die. Anyway, somebody told me (at length and in detail, but I've forgotten most of it) that a danger with Kim Jong-Il is that if he dies and succession is messy, the USA may be tempted to secure the (Three? Six?) nukes and the large chemical weapon stockpile in case a crazy gets them, and if the US is perceived to be inclined that way, the PLA might go in first. It is interesting to think about, and if people say that's strange, just pretend you're trying to work out how a free North Korea might realistically emerge. Broccoli (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
South Korea is NOT looking forward to inheriting the resultant mess. No-one else will want it and it'll make the reunification of Germany look fantastically cheap by comparison - David Gerard (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to echo the idea of not wanting them to die out of hate, spite or anything like that, but I do have a morbid curiosity about how it would play out... Scarlet A.pngtheist 22:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
@Netharian: Already read it. It was hell to find, too. Freedom for North Korea will be difficult - you have a paranoid dictator and extremely repressive regime, a citizenry incapable of rebelling, nukes, and a huge refugee problem waiting to happen for China and SK. IMO the best chance for freedom is everything goes tits up after Jong-il dies and the UN steps in. EddyP (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Ultimately, Kim's death will be a good thing - not for reasons of spite, but because being rid of the personality cult (unless there's a suitable successor to step right into his shoes & exert the same kind of cult, which I find unlikely) would be the first step towards loosening up. Look at Russia after Stalin's death, or China after Mao - hardly rosy, but the level of oppression definitely went down a notch. I think reunification with S.Korea would probably still be a very long way. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Seriously Eddy? Your best option is the UN? Anyway, I should think that the UN, being a tool of Western power, would be unacceptable to China. A less-crazy puppet leader might be more realistic, since that provides China with a buffer, might provide a long-term solution to the refugee question and would be less likely to frustrate Chinese foreign policy by blowing things up. Was it you who talked my ear off about this? Broccoli (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(EC)It'll definitely be a case of it getting worse before it gets better. His successor might just inherit the personality cult in the same way Jong-Il continued on from Il-Sung. But whether that can effectively continue to a third generation is debatable. I'm not sure about the UN stepping in, would the US happily lead a charge into there with peacekeeping, and after Iraq and Afghanistan, could the main players in the UN afford it? Scarlet A.pngtheist 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Will anything even change? The technical leader of North Korea is still Kim Il-Sung (Kim Jong-Il's dad), and he's been dead for 16 years. I find it difficult to believe that Kim Jong-Il hasn't been grooming one of his sons for the takeover of North Korea (his youngest is tipped for the role, according to wikipedia). And if his other two sons don't like it... so what? What can they do? North Korea does not strike me as the kind of country that has multiple factions in it's government, like where one of the sons can take over one for a rebellion. If his oldest son doesn't like the arrangement, what can he do? He's not going to control any of the military or have any of the popular support, because that's not what Kim Jong-Il wants. As for the changeover when he dies... I don't think it'd be a problem. Kim Il-Sung ruled the country from 1948 to 1994, and he had a cult of personality every bit as pervasive and insane as Kim Jong-Il, and there wasn't any huge upheaval when *he* died, so I can't see there being much of one when Kim Jong-Il dies either. In my mind, the best anyone can hope for when he dies is that his son, who has apparently had an international education of some sort, will be less of a complete asshole than he was. (I was looking for a link to a series of photos where someone had added amusing text to pictures from a tour of factories Kim Jong-Il did, but I couldn't find them) X Stickman (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Except I've heard it said that the elder Kim at least know how to run a country (as a brutal thug of a dictator, mind you). The younger Kim, though, is an idiot who is essentially only carrying on based on the "good will" his father's cult of personality created. I suppose it's possible that the next Kim in line is smarter than his dad, but the pattern would seem to indicate the opposite, particularly if most of his training came from his father.
Further, I've also seen arguments that the North Korean people aren't quite as brainwashed as is the general perception, and they have at least some idea they're probably the most oppressed people on Earth. If that's true, and you add in a leader with absolute no skill at manipulating the citizenry, you've got a recipe for a civil war.
The nightmare scenario is that things in North Korea get so bad that the leadership decides they have nothing to lose, and attack South Korea. And they have nukes. No one really knows how good their missiles are, but the general assumption is they couldn't strike the United States, they might be able to strike Japan, and South Korea could be a wasteland. MDB (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess, but nuking your immediate neighbor is radioactive suicide, I'd think. And nuking anyone else would also be suicide. What happens the day after they nuke Japan? Half the world declares war on them. It would be a short war. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Even ruling out North Korea going nuclear, the "we have nothing to lose so we might as well go to war" scenario is a possibility. And it could make a certain kind of perverse sense: they get rid of mouths to feed when they're killed in the war, the leadership goes out as military leaders rather than ending up like, for instance, Nicolae Ceaucescu (sp?), and South Korea, Japan and the US rebuild the country afterwards. The decent thing to do would be to go out like East Germany did, just throw open the borders, tacitly admit failure, and let the other half of the divided country fix your problems, but we can't even be sure if the leadership there is even rational. (Does Kim even believe a fraction of his own propaganda?) North Korea is a doomed state; the question is how much the leadership recognizes that, who will be in charge when it completely falls apart, and what they'll do then. MDB (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The personality cult has basically gone to piss. The father still has some measure of admiration, but it seems that most people don't like KJI. The thing about this succession is that the people know very little about the probable successor, Kim Jong-un, whereas KJI was very well established by the time his father died. And KJI was KIS's only son, while KJI has three, and the probably successor is the youngest. As for the factions, there have apparently been assassination attempts on the disgraced elder son of KJI, and there was apparently a plot to blow up KJI's train by parts of the army. EddyP (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Fetch the popcorn... Scarlet A.pngtheist 14:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Side note: whilst researching (read: opening some wikipedia pages while eating a sandwich with my other hand) this stuff, I found out that KJI's oldest son *was* his favourite and tipped successor, until he got caught trying to sneak into Japan on a false passport... to visit Disneyland. At age 30. He was essentially sneaking out of his dad's house to see Mickey Mouse, and he's 30 years old. I found this absolutely hilarious. X Stickman (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you ignore the fact it's horrifically real, a lot of stories about North Korea read like a hilarious parody of a dictatorship. My favorite is the claim that Kim Jong-Il once shot something like a 40 in 18 holes of golf, including three or four holes-in-one. That would easily make him the greatest golfer in history. MDB (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Did he also swim a raging river unaided or was that Mao? I mean, all these guys are freaking nuts and tend to blur together a little. Scarlet A.pngtheist 18:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I heartily recommend Pyongyang by Guy Delisle to anybody who's interested in N.Korea &/or likes comic books & animation. It's about the experience of being a foreigner working in Pyongyang, including obligations like visiting museums full of anti-American propaganda and bowing to statues and waxworks of the Great Leader, plus being told lots of gushing anecdotes about KIS & KJI by wide-eyed brainwashed Korean translators & guides. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
NK propaganda is a huge source of unintentional comedy. My personal favourites are how on-the-spot guidance by the Dear Leader led to improvements in Goat breeding and milking, and how, in reaction to international condemnation of the sinking of the SK ship, NK workers are now running to work of their own accord so that they can do more work for the state and thus frustrate the designs of their enemies. EddyP (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Nah, MDB... the best story from North Korea is Kim Jong-Il's kidnapping of a famous and talented South Korean film director and his wife, so he could force him to direct terrible, terrible films. Seriously, kidnapping an expert to create something for you? That's the plot of every single James Bond rip-off ever produced. Kim Jong-Il is *actually* a supervillain. X Stickman (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Foundation and Rationalwiki[edit]

I am here to ask a simple question: Should I give a shit about this? Will it affect me? Or is just a business/tax decision by Trent that is being blown out of proportion? --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, no, and yes, the latter. And by one editor. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It is really meta, and won't effect the day-to-day operating of the site, or your experience on the site. But it is a fairly fundamental shift in the ownership structure of the site. Your interest in it should be a reflection about how much you care about the meta-issues of site management and direction. tmtoulouse 19:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, given that the only site management decision that has ever affected was was the move to rationalwiki.nom.pw (it made me change my bookmarks), no, I don't think I care about who's in control of the site very much at all, since I doubt it's possible to direct the evolution of the community (which is what I do care about) from on high. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Underestimate my power of psychohistory at your own peril. tmtoulouse 19:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
See: The section title. It was intentional. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Bah you broke the 4th wall. tmtoulouse 19:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The fourth wall is made for breaking *turns, winks* Wouldn't you agree, readers? --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 20:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It affects you in that it requires some finance to complete. If you care about the site then you might like to help out Trent who digs deep into his own pockets to keep this site going.  Lily Inspirate me. 20:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice section title! Clever!--ADtalkModerator 03:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
"Underestimate" the power of ownership if you want to vote with your feet instead of with your vote. Mock attempts to allow you to have a say in this thing (especially mainspace) which many of you put a lot of "work" into. When you are all grumpy that they aren't doing it right, maybe I'll be there to remind you what you said when I suggested we could at least ask for some legal protection or make donations on our own terms. ~ Lumenos 11:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I like the way your are getting in an "I told you so" comment before before anything has actually happened which might bear out your somewhat oracular warnings. But we have been warned!--BobSpring is sprung! 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm going way out on a limb here and betting that someone from this conversation will complain about how RationalWiki is run, someday. ~ Lumenos 16:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Not doing what right? Paying the bills? Reporting the financials? ħumanUser talk:Human 15:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Naming the bureaucrats or settling their disputes. The Foundation will own rationalwiki.nom.pw/.com./.net, not to mention that RationalWikiWiki is on the same server. Will RationalWiki live forever? How do you image it will die? What will happen first, everyone looses interest in RationalWiki or it becomes "corrupt"?
When Trent becomes busy with real life, dies or whatever, that leaves 5 Trustees. Meetings only require a quorum of a majority (that's 3). Decisions require majority vote (that could be 2 Trustees). Human is already on the temporary board, I'm guessing he is a likely candidate for the permanent board. Trust in him ye RatWikians; nothing to see here. ~ Lumenos 16:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I am already going to suggest a quorum be the complete board unless an absentee appoints someone else to vote for them. There will be no "permanent board", I don't know where you got that from. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, true there is no permanent board, I meant the board that is elected for the year long term. (Although there is no legal barrier to prevent future Trustees from making themselves permanent.) I support your proposal; that would increase the number of minimum "absolute rulers" from 2 to 3. ~ Lumenos 18:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, how do I become a trustee? Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It starts with being trusted. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Trent's example suggestion was that every account that is a year old with 500+ edits, gets to vote for Trustees, and then it is by majority. This creates incentive for people to make socks with just over 500 edits. I say our votes should be weighted according to the number of edits (each edit is one point). ~ Lumenos 18:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
No, because then you run into the same problem as before, but with different people. Human and Pi dominate the list by a good 10000 edits. If you got a voting block consisting of the top 8 users, you have effective control of nominating the trustees. Human, Pi and Nx(counting the bot and the user himself), three users, would command over a third of the vote. Isn't that exactly what you want to avoid? If you had a cabal of three people who voted as a bloc, all they would need is 1/4th of the remaining vot to dictate policy. Not making a comment on what I think should be done, just pointing out that yur solution is not cinsisant with your concerns. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
If somebody goes to all the effort of creating a convincing sockpuppet account with hundreds of edits, just to get one extra vote on community issues, fair enough. I can't see this becoming much of a problem anytime soon. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Good point Emperor. It seems I have conflicting concerns and my proposal alone, may not be an improvement. For now, I withdraw. ~ Lumenos 20:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
If I fly to McMaster and kiss Trent Toulouse on his hand would I be trusted? (It's a joke) Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I know when I'm not even an admin yet that I'm not cool enough to be a trustee but I wanted to know if it were a plausible goal. If you don't trust me or still think I'm TK or MC or some shit just ask Goonie or Google Chs Tarpon Chearleeders (not a typo) on Facebook. It's not my real Facebook but those photos are real. And Trent is wonderful by the way. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the accepted practice is to kiss his ring.  Lily Inspirate me. 21:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You know it just came to me that none of us have no idea what Trent even looks like? He doesn't even have a picture on his Facebook. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I am an enigma. As for becoming a trustee, the exact requirements aren't worked out, but it will ultimately come down to community choice. It is not up to me, its up to who the community trusts for the position. One thing to keep in mind is that maintaining "anonymity" as a trustee is likely to be difficult. tmtoulouse 22:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Something else to consider is age. From what I've read this is like a corporate board of directors (is that correct?). I've rejected a few tools at Wikipedia because it required an age of majority. I wouldn't mind if you knew who I am Trent so long as we didn't tell the world. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
A trustee must be able to enter into legal contracts based on NM laws. Which is 18. If an individual truly wishes to be a trustee, but is under 18, keep in mind that trustees will be elected every 1-2 years.tmtoulouse 23:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a picture of Trent somewhere in my bookmarks. He looks like a wizard, without the wizard suit. Also, I doubt a trustee can maintain anonymity, since they have to be able to legally sign things as real people. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If the gentleman would kindly refrain from cyberstalking our aging patriarch whilst we are trying to discuss important matters. Thank you. ~ Lumenos 04:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Might it be possible to write into bylaws that if the community elects an under-aged or anonymous person [psuedonymous editor], that they be allowed "into" meetings and that a Trustee is required to vote as the elected person wishes? ~ Lumenos 04:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I doubt it, considering how stupid that sounds. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Appearances. You're not afraid of competing with a little teenager, are you? ;-) ~ Lumenos 07:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If I haven't lost all my wits, didn't Trent appear in a waterboarding video on U-Tube a year or so back?  Lily Inspirate me. 18:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) What if I take the whole annonymous part out of the equation. Could that be possible without people here stalking me down off-wiki? Say if I wanted to separate business from my personal affairs? Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Still no answer? And why New Mexico law? I thought RW was Canadian. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
RW resides in Canada because that's where I am currently living. However, I am from New Mexico, and that is ultimately where I am likely to end up. As a US citizen living in Canada on a student visa for only another year or so it would have been difficult and likely silly to incorporate under Canadian law. I have a registered agent in NM I can use for the foundation, and visit new Mexico once or twice a year making it easier to do certain kinds of work.
Elections for trustees are likely not going to happen until January 2011. The rules are still a little vague and the current incorporating board will have to work them out together. But the basic idea is that each board member will need to be entering into various legal contracts as a representative of the foundation, that places certain limits such as age. It will also make anonymity difficult, if not impossible, even if there is no need to out directly on RW real information will need to be exchanged and likely used for certain kinds of documents. tmtoulouse 16:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Screw it, my name is Mickey Annoymouse and I am 15. Just don't try to hunt me down or anything, my parents probably wouldn't been to keen to the whole idea and I'll deny recognition. Not that I can be a trustee for the next 3years but hopefully its a plausible goal. Nothing secret here, nothing to be ashamed of. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (decided not to have that posted publically)
Not trying to pressure you or anyone else to "out" themselves. While the trustees are the ones that ultimately vote up or down on things like by-laws, they are representatives of the community. If you are interested in meta-site management you do not have to be a trustee to be involved. As this whole discussion outlines this isn't a secret group behind closed doors insulating itself from the community. It is open and receptive to feedback of any kind from anyone and it is taken seriously. tmtoulouse 17:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
"Could that be possible without people here stalking me down off-wiki?" Which people? Wait, don't answer that! Remember, these laws are for your own protection. Just ponder quietly please. Jack Mehoff 17:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I know Lumenos. I have to say that owning part of this site would be cool almost like owning part of the Wikimedia Foundation and the fact that it's a possibility in three years makes me smile. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Democrat with a spine[edit]

Can I get a ahem?--Thanatos (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A... H... E... M... AHEM! Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Get! Get! Great video to watch. ~SuperHamster Talk 23:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I tried but it gave me an error message. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, odd. I dunno if it'll work (I doubt it), but maybe if I embed it here, it will. I looked at some of Grayson's other speeches - he's really great. ~SuperHamster Talk 23:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It's because I'm on my phone. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Pfft, could've said that earlier, you secretive troll. ~SuperHamster Talk 00:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I did, just not in this section you boastful troll. 94.246.126.165 (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I know you did, I'm just really slow at making connections, you boastful boastful-troll-pointing-out troll. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I know, I know, I'm such a terrible, terrible person. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Nah, just a troll. And I'm just saying that because you label yourself as one (at least, an ex one). ~SuperHamster Talk 01:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I used to be known as "Cheerleader Not-Troll" (the "cheerleader troll" but without the trolling) and just got tired of it but if you have a better idea for a name just say something. I actually thought you were joking. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No, no, I'm just joking around. But if you do indeed want another name, might I suggest either UltraGuineaPig or AwesomeGerbil, or perhaps even NiftyFerret. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Lol trolling the troll? Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes ma'am, partly due to the fact that I hold a first-appearance grudge against you for your trollin' activities in the Mother Wiki. Heil Wikipedia! ~SuperHamster Talk 01:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I stopped trolling at Wikipedia months ago when I discovered RW. I am a well established sysop and 'crat at Wikipedia and have been asked to be part of ArbCom or become a checkuser multple times by multiple people. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I heard this speech on the talk radio earlier. Very nice. Although the TYT guy not so much. Oh well. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

He screwed up at one point, where he said 2011 instead of what he meant, which was 2021. Ah well. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Back in the day moment #82: Before the turn of the millennium, forecasts of unemployment numbers or wheat production etc. were always couched in with the phrase "by the year 2000" instead of simply "2000" as if we didn't know what they were talking about unless it was spelled out for us, "Oh the YEAR 2000!" Or was this only me who noticed this (in which case I've slipped into (yet another) parallel unviverse)? C®ackeЯ 23:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheerleading a sport or not?[edit]

The courts previously said that cheerleading was a "contact sport" but the news just said the courts said it's not? Of course my roommate had it on Faux News so do you think it's forreal? Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say yes. It's competitive, and more fun to watch than football. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 00:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Faux News was right, I just heard it on the radio on my way back home. I'd say it is only when it's in "competition" form, in which teams are trying to score points to win against others. Is there such thing? I don't know my cheerleading very well. If it's just to cheer on the local basketball team, then no. ~SuperHamster Talk 00:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
There are such competitions. And those seem like they should be called a sport, and get on with it. That being said, the cheerleaders at my school were not. They were the "rah rah take it to the hoop" kind, and weren't even very good at that. Quaru (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
We have competitions and we cheer at the football and basketball games. Cheerleading has more fatal injuries than any other female sport, and I've been a statistic more than once. 94.246.126.165 (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm....well, heart disease is the leading cause of death for the entire world, thus making it a sport. Anyone up for a game of...Hearts? Falldownlaugh.gif ~SuperHamster Talk 01:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
♥ ♥ ♥ Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Cheerleaders should wear helmets! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
But then we wouldn't be all pretty for the football players and the boyz in the crowd. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not a sport if you have to be "pretty" to play. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I see your comment and raise you ladies' Beach Volleyball. --PsyGremlinFale! 13:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If the cheerleader's hot enough, I doubt the boyz would even notice the helmet in the first place. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I have to get off here or my friend's phone is going to die and my phone is already dead. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) From what I can gather this storm in a teacup was all about a university which was massively ignoring Title IX and, when called on it, used as part of their defence that they had lots of female cheerleaders. More telling was the way they ensured that members of the women's cross country running team were counted three times in order to make up the number. As for whether cheerleading is a sport, well it depends how it's done. If the object of the exercise is to, as the job says, lead the cheering then it's no more a sport than the drummer who leads the cheering at Bloomfield Road, home of the mighty Blackpool FC. If the object of the exercise is to perform acrobatics and/or dance routines which will be measured and scored then, yes, of course it is. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest watching the Penn & Teller "Bullshit!" episode on that one (S08E01) Sen (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A question from a Brit. Why are cheerleaders necessary?--BobSpring is sprung! 12:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Something to do for the female equivalent of a jock I guess. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
When your sports are as deadly boring as yank ones, you have to give the crowd something to look at. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Jeeves hath it right: eye candy for the guys (and some of the grils) (also something for the crowd to watch while the ads are on t'telly) 13:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
You know when you go and see Tranmere Rovers, and they have a guy in a dog suit running round the pitch and waving before the match starts to get the atmosphere going? Cheerleaders are a primitive form of that.--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 14:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My university got around to getting a cheerleading squad in the last year or two. They're quite good by most accounts, it's really just group dancing with occasional shouting and clapping. The "cheerleading" aspects of it are almost dead, kind of like how the erotic aspects of pole dancing have given way to "holy fuck that's impressive!!" I'm almost coming round to the idea, even if they do monopolise all the campus rehearsal space. Scarlet A.pngtheist 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
My university (in the UK) had an american football team, and someone had apparently decided that you can't have one of those without cheerleaders, so we also had a cheerleading squad. But basically everyone who ever saw a routine just found it weird and kinda awkward. I don't think us brits quite get it. X Stickman (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Coventry City FC have cheeleaders but it doesn't really work. First of all us Brits don't take it seriously enough so they're not that good and, secondly, as Kriss said, we prefer an man dressed up in a dog/monkey/whatever suit. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
So you're all furries then? Vulpius (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Vicky The Vixen - a true British cheerleader

Cheerleaders... well, Mascots with ma-cheese-mo!!

WTF is a furry? You got to live in Antartica to be comfortable yiffing in that getup. The ladies might be better off in full Islamic modesty gear. Jack Mehoff 17:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
In the US of A, we have mascots and cheerleaders. Our school has a tarpon and its usually a side-lined cheerleader in it. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to the wonder of the internet I have discovered that a "tarpon" seems to be a kind of fish and not a misspelling for something else feminine.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Fuck you Bob M. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey! I really didn't know what a "tarpon" was!--BobSpring is sprung! 20:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Lol, jk Bob M is cool. Unlike the other schools that similarily call us the Fighting Tampons. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
And cheerleader porn is second only to clown porn in teh awsumnus. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
U have 2 go 2 4chan 4 that. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sky TV tried to introduce cheerleaders (the "Sky Strikers") to British football in 1992. [7] It really didn't take. The spectators were either nonplussed, or booed them off, or greeted them with "tits out for the lads" chants, which Sky wasn't exactly thrilled about broadcasting, & so they were dropped by the end of the season. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Valuating sports, gender measuring devices, "etc"[edit]

(I'm replying to the post by "Jack Hughes (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)")

Thank you for making this thread "informative" for something other than (subconscious) euphemisms. I disagree basically on grounds that this means the question is whether cheering is as worthy of funding in the same niche as (other) sports. Cheering seems to be more/better/riskier exercise (and visual "entertainment") as compared with drumming.

Back to Useful Euphemisms for $100: Do you know how difficult it is to define a female for sports purposes? Many of the top athletes are intersex (not to mention the handicaps who are disqualified for their unique superiority in the (silly) sport).

Porn or other forms of sex work seem to have similar health/(visual/tactile) "benefits" and risk (although less in "need" of tax funding). The visual entertainment is the usual economic "benefit" (for the watchee not the watcher. See I put "benefit" in quotes because I'm doubtful that the spectator is getting much benefit from growing da beer belly and sitting on teh beer booty.) I reeeeeeally wish someone could educate me in the odds of getting each infection. Is the risk of such "injury" from (promiscuous) sex using the penis friction-ing female condom, comparable to that of (other) contact sports? ~ Lumenos 16:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

OMG people look for "cheerleading basket toss" on youtube. I phailed one of these and landed in the hospital. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Very fortunate you were doing the routine above a hospital then. DickTurpis (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
LMAO. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I was cheering above the hospital in the name of science! Give me a D, Give me an O, Give me a C, Give me a T, Give me an O, Give me an R, Give me an S! Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In 2015[edit]

What level of paranoia will Farah have descended to about Obama? - π 09:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck...? I don't get it, what the fuck. The guy is cooked. Expect it on CP's main page. AceX-102 09:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It is 11 years old. - π 09:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ahhhh. I see. AceX-102 09:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It is one of the oldest articles on WND, from the later days of the Clinton presidency. I was wondering how he is going to hold up if Obama is president for as long. - π 10:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

'Sup[edit]

Well, I have to say that coming back from my last summer holiday was much more interesting. Has anything happened? Wisest stupid Hoover! 17:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone killed a frog. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Was it an interesting frog? Wisest stupid Hoover! 18:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It was Kermit. Went in front of a firing squad in North Korea for being an American spy. Very nasty.-Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 18:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The lumetics are attempting to purchase the asylum. ~ Lunemouse 18:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Woo![edit]

New woo: see this news story. Certain sounds can get you high... or can they?-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 09:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to tie in with binaural beats. Some of us still prefer the old fashioned way. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 12:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
That story should be added as a ref in the I-Doser article. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I also love the "teens are claiming" bit. Teens claim loads of shit, like "Blind Guardian makes good metal" or "Hannah Montana is teh awesome" and we don't take those claims seriously. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ugh. I had to watch Hanna Montana while the niece was round. I managed 5 minutes before I wanted to kill the entire cast, anyone involved in the production, or even just reflected in the screen. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
5 minutes, I wanted to do it after less than 30 seconds worth of highlights that Charlie Brooker showed on You Have Been Watching. "OOOH, AWK-WARRRRRD!!!!" Scarlet A.pngtheist 14:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Pi & the Bible[edit]

Came across this entry on the whole pi=3 thing and they come up with a better answer. Seems Abarim Publications specialise in "Quantum Mechanics, Chaos Theory & the Reliability of the Bible." I'll let the maths boffins take over now. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 13:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Whenever I read something like that it drives me to aSK to reinforce the stupid. IT'S a fucking STORY for fuck's sake. No more than how the blackbird got its yellow beak by dipping it in gold dust should it be taken as anything but. (and without once mentioning "Bronze Age" ... Oh bollocks!) 13:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
But that one is pretty amusing. Scarlet A.pngtheist 14:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The whole thing is bobbins. The Bible only uses whole numbers. There are no fractions or decimals anywhere in it, so why exempt pi? Did the ancient hebrews even have fractions or decimals?-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 14:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm no math boffin, but the argument just kind of falls all over the place, on the last page in particular. "Okay, we can't think of any way in which this number is accurate...but numbers suck anyway. 10 = 1! Big army < small army!" ~ Kupochama[1][2] 15:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The second page has some real gems too: the fact that the decimal expansion of pi goes on for ever means that all the stuff after the nth digit is "fictional and untrue". (in part they base that claim on the "fact" that the Planck length is the smallest possible distance, but it's not yet known if there even is such a thing). They then try to make some sort of odd link between Godel's incompleteness theorem and the fact that the ratio of circumference to diameter isn't 3.14... in non-Euclidian geometries. Except pi is defined with reference to Euclidian space, so the fact that C/D isn't 3.14.. on a sphere is irrelevant. Sigh. alt (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Wait! The ratio of the circumference to the diameter is less than π in positively curved non-Euclidean space, i.e. that with a large distortion due to mass; therefore, gravity was much greater then. I'm sure that there are a wealth of delightful conclusions that can be drawn from this. Wisest stupid Hoover! 16:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Stand by, my hawkmen![edit]

When great British engineering and great British hams combine. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Will it happen? It always seemed a better option to me - going up like a plane. My dad took my brother to see the skylon in 1951 - he wouldn't take me 'cause I was only 7 a girl!. SusanG Toast 14:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Why hasn't Brian Blessed been knighted yet? Other than that Queen Elizabeth doesn't want to be deafened when he speaks during the ceremony. MDB (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
(EC) The Skylon is the most viable project of an air-breathing, HTOL* craft at the moment, but it's still pretty much a "paper rocket spaceplane" at this stage. It needs a lot more money to be completed. See wp:Reaction Engines Skylon.
(HTOL = Horizontal Take-Off and Landing)--ZooGuard (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Didn't watch, but doesn't it take just as much energy to acheive escape velocity/a given orbit no matter how one does it? Of course, using stand-up rockets does waste the rocket body (I'm surprised we haven't started putting parachutes on them...). ħumanUser talk:Human 17:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Per unit mass, yes (modulo air resistance, of course.) The idea is instead of carrying about a metric fuckton of liquid oxygen with you, to use atmospheric oxygen as far as possible and only switch over when that becomes impractical. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, good explanation, thanks! ħumanUser talk:Human 18:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I think they do (well, did now) put paracutes on to the shuttle SRBs to recover them. They certainly recovered most of Ares when they sent it up. Scarlet A.pngtheist 14:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Space woo[edit]

I'd like to know how putting people in space has escaped the woo/pork detectors. I suspect nerd bias and that humans will convert the Earth into a spacecraft before living in space become practical. ~ Lumenos 16:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

For your entertainment pleasure.
~ Lumenos 16:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Space woo? Ufology. Moon landing hoaxists. Scientology - David Gerard (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Substance, m' boy. Ever heard of it? ~ Lumenos 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
"Has escaped"? You kidding me? "Human vs robotic spaceflight" is the space nerd equivalent to the OS wars. And the never ending arguments about when and where should humans go if they are going anywhere...--ZooGuard (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Space has not covered this phenomena. Seti@home was the first grid computing project, even though there are much more utilitarian projects IMHPerception[8] (might I suggest yeti@home?). The only robotics we need are for Earth satellites and all we need to know beyond that is if are there asteroids or quasars that threaten Earth life, so that we may reinforce tin-foil hat, if necessary. But since we know it is so easy for clay to turn to human... ~ Lunemowse 03:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Mobile phone vs. Laptop[edit]

I need one and I'm 50-50. If you needed a battery life of 5+ hours of mobile broadband to entertain yourself, would you get a phone or a tiny laptop? Winner takes it all. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither will last that long. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
True dat, 15:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
That's a lie. You are not the winner. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I know they make batteries that last longer than the OEMs but I don't know about 7 hours. If you get a laptop you can plug it in. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If you need 5+ hours of mobile broadband to entertain yourself you either need a power cord or a life. I suggest the latter. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
True dat. 15:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Actually, I think he needs a girlfriend or boyfriend, because those 5+ hours of entertainment will be composed of, as I believe it to be, watching and interacting with p0rn. ~SuperHamster Talk 16:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You know the only way? Else fuck you for thinking my lifestyle is inferior. It's the only thing I'm attached to. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll play girlfriend for you bunchanumbers. Just don't tell my boyfriend... Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
"Quiet! We won't talk about this."? Yeah have that written on your tomb. Or upload pictures. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Come on. Who wants to win. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks bunchanumbers, I lost (the game). Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Troll

Replace batteries with extras. Solves taht one. ~ Lumenos 16:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You don't give us enough info to tell you more. ~ Lumenos 16:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I do. Somebody needs to give a one word opinion. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Laptop. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Laptop. 94.246.126.36 (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Netbook. I was looking at them a few months ago and some claim battery life around nine hours. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
iPad? DogPMarmite Patrol 17:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
San Ipad? (Twinned with Melchester.) I'd go with a netbook, more versatile, proper keyboard, bigger screen.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Smartphone. It's just a useful electronic multitool to have. It's an internet device (wikipedia in your pocket!), music player, gps nav tool (yay, google maps!), gaming device, point & shooter etc. Occasionally they take calls too! In addition in the future if you need it and poke around a bit (rooting for Android, jailbreaking for iphone), you can tether the internet connection to another device. Sen (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Buy a MacBook Pro, so everyone knows how creative you are. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Depends on what you want to do. I like my iPhone because I can do most of my browsing on it, and a little editing. I wouldn't use it for writing anything particularly long or complicated, and have long-considered Flash to be a pain in the arse platform most commonly used to induce serious pains in the arse. I've used netbooks in the past, and found them to be reasonably close to a desktop experience, albeit limited by the hardware and size. Personally I'd buy an iPad next, due mainly to the form factor and the OS, and it's handier than bringing the MacBook Pro around the house or trying to use it in bed for some browsing. Really depends on what you expect to do, and your ability to effectively read your sites on small screens. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 21:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
My 6-cell EeePc typically gives me about 7 and half hours of life (the sticker says up to 9.5 hrs), some of the newer ones have about 11hrs (take off about 2 or 3 for the fact you will be actually using it). You will probably burn through some more battery running a mobile internet flash stick modem, but you will still get 6+ hrs out of one easily. - π 23:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Some long life laptops here. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 07:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I've got a smartphone (HTC legend) and a netbook. But they are useful for different things. I think we need to know more about BON's needs. In general terms, if I could only use one, I'd go for the netbook as it does more for me.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)