RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki

RationalWiki:Forum

Headers (pseudoscience, bullshit, etc.) (03:21, 11 Mar 2010) Dinner Club (00:20, 10 Mar 2010) Festive logo (01:01, 8 Mar 2010) Making Karajou funny (04:23, 7 Mar 2010) Do we care about copyright licences? (00:21, 7 Mar 2010) Use of RevisionDelete beyond disclosures (10:32, 6 Mar 2010) Ether (18:03, 3 Mar 2010) Fixedearth.com article (19:21, 1 Mar 2010) Anonymous userpages (03:23, 24 Feb 2010) Phillip Rayment of aSK, statements ? (13:32, 23 Feb 2010) COMMUNITY CHALKBOARD Article of the Weak Trent is looking for help with a very important operation which may, or may not, occur by the Ides of February. Don't forget the to do list for all your inspirational needs! Add your message here.

Contents 1 side-by-side (sticky) 2 Important changes regarding page titles (sticky) 3 Hologram bracelets 4 Oh god, please no...don't do it.... 5 Bullshit can be very dangerous 6 Best. Smiley. Ever. 7 If you're in the New Jersey area right now... 8 Curse you, xkcd 9 Question 10 I. Am. Awestruck. 11 British Libel laws (bump) 12 Dawkins - recap 13 Vote 14 Link 15 We don't need America, we can grow our own nutters. 16 Mexicans 17 Ependymin antioxidant up-regulation claims 18 Easy work for a lazy 'crat 19 Troll hiding behind the brain logo 20 Wants one!!! 21 PZ strikes agin! 22 Catholic child abuse in Germany 23 Oh my Crispy Lord! 24 Blogs 25 Any other libertarian skeptics want to provide backup? 26 BNP members ok to be teachers...

[edit] side-by-side (sticky)

This is probably too long/technical, but worth keeping in mid, for a sbs. Šţěŗĭļė_{mini-chat-room-thingy} 12:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks worthwhile so I stickied it. ħuman 12:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I can set up just the "Truth or Dare" sections.... Šţěŗĭļė_{mini-chat-room-thingy} 18:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm... it's hard to figure out how to do this. It's the usual garbage: playing around in the gaps, claiming that irreducible complexity is evidence of something, saying there is a positive case for design, etc., but it's not clear what sections to include in a SBS. Šţěŗĭļė_{mini-chat-room-thingy} 02:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This should be "un-stickied"; If it's worth an article there's a place for that. It won't get done any quicker here. 02:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

[edit] Important changes regarding page titles (sticky)

& and + now work in page titles, e.g. User:Nx/sand&box and User:Nx/+sandbox will link to the correct page. However, this means that hacks like User:Nx&action=edit and User:Phantom Hoover&action=delete no longer work (since this is now correctly interpreted as a full page title). If you see something like this, change it to http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Nx&action=edit.

There might be things that don't play nicely with this, e.g. I'm not sure how DPL will work with page titles containing + or &, and Capturebot2 for example uses & to separate pages in its configuration (though that's just minor problem).

If you see any breakage anywhere, tell me ASAP. -- Nx / talk 11:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought we'd had this since an update ages ago since I'm we and Wikipedia have been able to get "Penn & Teller" for a while. Though I may be mistaken and getting it confused with some redirecting hack. But anyway, cheers for that, I'll keep an eye out. ArmondikoV^{...I'll untie your Angel!} 13:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it was not a MediaWiki problem, it was an apache problem. I'm rebuilding all link tables now (that's why the server is slow), because of this and because there's some DPL junk there too, and then I'll check Wantedpages. -- Nx / talk 13:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Hologram bracelets

These are all the rage here. They cost about 30 euros and are a cheap plastic bracelet. People are convinced they give them extra powers. All about them here. How do they work:

• What is Power Balance?
• Power Balance is performance technology that uses holograms embedded with frequencies that react positively with your body’s natural energy field to improve balance, strength, and flexibility.
• How does it work?
• Most everything has a frequency inherent to it. Some frequencies react positively with your body and others negatively. When the hologram comes in contact with your body’s energy field, it allows your body to interact with the natural, beneficial frequency stored within the hologram. This results in improved energy flow throughout your body.

Obvious really. The video is also good for a laugh.--Bob^{It's windy!} 19:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Too bad we're not talking about the bracelets from Legend of Zelda. Now those would be a great investment.--Thanatos (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Aww, yeah! I'd slap one of those babies on and go around lifting Buicks off of the road looking for gems! And when there aren't any to be found, I'd hurl them at nearby chickens. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And when the chickens attacked you could ride away on your horse, on which you are invulnerable! Evil educated Hoover! 20:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Oh god, please no...don't do it....

Wellington, New Zealand. My home town. Well known now due to successes in the film industry. Home of Weta Workshop who are getting truck loads of Oscars for Lord of the Rings and Avatar. Also home of Peter Jackson and the NZ film industry. But please, for fucks sake, don't do this! I used to joke about it but now....ARGH! You filthy mongrels. I'll burn it down. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

They should come up with something original rather than just ripping the U.S. off. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

They should just not do anything at all. I'll burn it down - I swear. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahahahah!! That's hilarious. I feel bad for you Ace, I'd hate to live within 20 miles of that hideous thing. Τe†rоиіαn ^{go to hELL!} 21:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It'll be a fucking embarrasment. Every time I drive out to the airport I'll have to see that horrible fucking sign. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A giant snow wang would be less tacky, and would perhaps keep the missionaries away. I'll chip in to the "Free Ace" fund if you end-up burning the thing down. --^{Ask me about our gymnasium} 21:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Heck, I'd fly over there and help him burn it down. One hideous sign is bad enough. Thankfully, most Hollywood residents can't see the sign because of the smog. Τe†rоиіαn ^{moar more lame humor} 21:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't feel too bad Ace. Whenever I drive to the airport here in Denver, I have to pass the Denver Demon Horse. SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me while I point and laugh. ArmondikoV^{...I'll untie your Angel!} 12:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't heard one positive remark from ANYONE in Denver. SirChuckB^{Go Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes} 07:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Bullshit can be very dangerous

Anyone following the recent news coverage regarding John Venables might be interested in this one. Apparently, someone (as a sick joke, I hope, rather than something malicious) has decided to circulate a rumour via text/email that Venables's new name is David Calvert. If you punch that name into Google, guess what you get? Aye, a baby photographer. Nice sick joke there, someone who killed a toddler as a 10 year old and has been rearrested (according to shitty Tabloid rambling at least) over child-pornogaphy charges. So well fucking done to A) the person who thought this one up and B) the sick gullible cunts who decided to fall for it and pass it on. Well fucking done you fucking morons. Do these idiots really believe the police and government (who are tracking this guy under a protected identity and very strict terms of release) would let him get that job? Dear fuck no.

Actually, mid rant, I came across this. Apparently not only what I said above could happen, but it actually did. Anyway, I wish Calvert the best, his art is pretty good, while I hope the thick (or twisted) twats who circulate this shit burn in the hell that I don't believe in. ArmondikoV^{...I'll untie your Angel!} 19:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about the sort of people who vandalise a paediatrician's office because their job title has the "paed" prefix. The Paedofinder General is real, and he's living large. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That sky news link is scary as the comments in the article show just how thick the viewers of Sky News are. The god-awful English and the clearly neanderthal levels of intelligence are a sight to behold. And the comment by "Angry Woman" at 9:47: "If we had the death penalty (which some people want) or life imprisonment. Would we be having these discussions!!!!!!! " Quite apart from the abhorrent nature of the death penalty, Mrs Woman is suggesting we should have executed a child. Bondurant (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Bondurant, on behalf of English people everywhere, I'd like to say that some of us aren't like that, just most of us. SuperJosh ^{may be an idiot, but if there's one thing he's not, it's an idiot} 10:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Angry Woman's comment ends with "These people are just a drain of taxpayers money." Yup, she's barking bloody bonkers if she's justifying the death penalty as a way of saving money. Sky News is there for Sun readers who struggle with complicated words. I wonder if the police would consider prosecuting people found to have passed the messages around? Ignorance should not be a defence when making such a serious allegation, and I don't really care if they did it in good faith. They formed a digital lynch mob to wreck the life of some poor sod. This isn't an issue of free speech, more the modern equivalent of spreading rumours about the village midwife being a witch. Dumb apes.--^{Ask me about our gymnasium} 15:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Going through the comments is quite saddening. Just the sheer quantity of "removed by moderators" is really disturbing... But one or two seriously seem to think that the Calvert rumour is true, saying "oh, so where is he then? Surely since we know Venables is in prison he should be photographed to prove his innocence". So, guilty until proven innocent, and even then it's not enough for the brainless twats that we have to deal with. Murderers, dangerous paedophiles and violent rapists probably only exist in the dozens, these idiots probably exist in the hundreds of thousands - therefore I reckon, that on average, the UK would be best off without them. ArmondikoV^{...I'll untie your Angel!} 16:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The man was hounded out of his house twice by the baying mob. He was interviewed on BBC R4's 6pm news, for those with access to iPlayer. CS Miller (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Best. Smiley. Ever.

I'm not really in to all this 'smiley' malarkey, but I found this beauty on a (ahem) 'specialist interest literature' forum. Oooh-yeah! DeltaStar^{Speciationspeed!} 23:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Something (even some 50+ years after puberty) I've never witnessed. About as stimulating as watching my cat copulate, I should think. 23:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

That would prolly depend on who you were watching--and if they could put on a good show...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] If you're in the New Jersey area right now...

.... that moaning sound you're hearing may be Andy Schlafly experiencing the most massive (only?) orgasm of his life.

As per Newsweek, a new academic paper says that people who buy "green" products are more likely to steal afterwards (warning -- link is to a PDF).

MDB (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering what that noise was. Τe†rоиіαn ^{unintelligently designed} 15:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Newsweek article doesn't seem to say that...? (Didn't read pdf, haven't installed arcobat on this machine yet) ħuman 19:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The sub-headline says "A new study shows that people are more likely to cheat and steal after buying green products." The actual article, summarizing the paper, says that doing something altruistic, like buying green products, gives people a feeling they have a bit of "moral currency" (my phrasing) to do something non-altruistic later. It's a massive stretch to lead to claiming "people who buy green are more likely to steal", but its something Andy would love. MDB (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, yes. Andy would read the sub header and trumpet the news. I'll read the pdf later. ħuman 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I "read" (Schlafly skimmed) the pdf. While the compensatory ethics thing is what it's all about, there's nothing in there even slightly resembling the experiment Newsweek describes. Oh, I see, the pdf is just to explain what CE means in general and the NW article is about a later-linked or at least mentioned study. ħuman 20:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Curse you, xkcd

It's been four hours since I read today's cartoon, and I still have Beyonce's Single Ladies stuck in my head!

"If you liked it than you should have put a ring on it..."

MDB (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Eggselent! (Nice vid too) 15:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

(EC) I saw that this morning and groaned for a good five minutes. Worst joke I've heard all day. Τe†rоиіαn ^{what's a tetronian?} 15:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a worse LotR joke in a comic strip... a drawing of Angela Lansbury, with the text:

"Jessica Fletcher! Have you solved the case yet?"

"Yes. Sauron, the Dark Lord, did it."

With the caption...

wait for it...

"Mordor she wrote."

MDB (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

MDB, that actually made me physically facepalm. Bondurant (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson disparagingly referred to punning as "the lowest form of humour" 16:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

MDB wins "worst joke of the day." Τe†rоиіαn ^{go to hELL!} 16:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! As I like to say, I am an incorrigible punster, so you should never ever incorrige me. MDB (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I. Don't. Get it. (Oh, hang on, LotR = Lord of the Rings? Right? Ah, that's why I don't get it) I normally do 'get' xkcd, honestly! DeltaStar^{Speciationspeed!} 23:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus only every made one joke, and it was a pun. When he told Peter that he was the rock upon which Jesus would build his church, it was a pun on Peter's name. Punning is one of the oldest and most-respected forms of humor. Woe to him who slanders punning!--^안녕! 23:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Do we want to allow new users to upload files? -- Nx / talk 15:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I say no. Limit it to sysops and higher, since good people get sysopped pretty quickly anyway. --^{Ask me about our gymnasium} 15:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's on autoconfirmed now (though sysops get the right too, so if someone is sysopped before they get autoconfirmed, they can upload too). The sysop everyone on sight policy is something I no longer agree with. -- Nx / talk 16:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. If someone wants to upload an image immediately I'd say that was suspicious. ArmondikoV^{...I'll untie your Angel!} 15:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say make it pretty easy. Not necessarily "immediate" but pretty soon. Autoconfirmed means they replied to an email, right? ħuman 19:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, autoconfirmed means 20 edits and 2 days old. -- Nx / talk 20:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Which often happens after some gets sysopped. But it's a good barrier for upload rights. That said, however, if we want to tighten up and keep everything above board regarding images, would it be worth restricting it further? Someone who has just 20 edits and 2 days of RW experience may not know the ins and outs of Creative Commons and may not even think to read the warnings on the upload screen, or may just think "ah, it's just a cover for them, I can upload this fine." ArmondikoV^{...I'll untie your Angel!} 21:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Aren't we supposed to not care about image licensing? -- Nx / talk 21:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose restricting it to sysops only, but restricting it to autoconfirmed users is all right. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Some people probably done. Many people think that needs to change. We've taken the first steps but there really isn't a system in place where we can properly enforce it (such as stripping upload rights of people who break copyright law). ArmondikoV^{...I'll untie your Angel!} 21:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

But that'll never happen when certain people think the whole licensing tag business is just bureaucratic redtape and a waste of time. -- Nx / talk 21:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There is, of course, a way to deal with it without stripping anyone's upload rights: delete images without a tag. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Many images have a clear copyright status indicated but no "tag". ħuman 01:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think "autoconfirmed" is a fair "hurdle" to uploading files. ħuman 03:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We have many tagged as "no licence" and a date, with the plan being to inform the uploader and give them a certain time frame to find the licence or have it deleted. However, the issue there is the backlog of older stuff that we have. We could just clean sweep it, of course. ArmondikoV^{...I'll untie your Angel!} 18:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] I. Am. Awestruck.

The Who's Baba O'Riley.

As played exclusively on items available at ThinkGeek.

[edit] British Libel laws (bump)

For information:

Email Mar 5:

THE BIG LIBEL WEEK: HOW YOU CAN GET INVOLVED (AND A FREE EVENT)

Dear friends,

Next week is the ‘Big Libel Week’ with events, more media coverage of our campaign and a big push to get politicians to sign up for libel reform. We had great news this week when Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, announced he’d changed the law to slash the ‘success fees’ lawyers can charge in libel cases (http://tinyurl.com/yg2tcq7). We asked Jack Straw to do this in October – and now it has been done – it’s a great success! But this is just the start of the reforms we need.

You can help by writing to an unconvinced MP, getting your friends to sign up and by attending an event.

PERSUADE YOUR MP TO BACK OUR CAMPAIGN

214 MPs have backed our campaign by singing EDM 423, but many haven’t. Check if your MP has signed up here: http://www.libelreform.org/news/443-edm-423

And if they haven’t please send them the letter on that page. We need every MP to sign up.

GET YOUR FRIENDS TO JOIN US

We have to secure 100,000 signatures so that MPs know how important this issue is to you. In less than 100 days, the political parties will fight a general election. We want reform of our libel laws to be one of their priorities. So tell your friends, family and colleagues - there's a long way to go!

COME TO OUR EVENT: “The impact of our libel laws on documentary film makers: what you don’t get to see”

Thursday 11th March, 6:30pm at Free Word Centre, 60 Farringdon Road, London, EC1R 3GA

As part of the Big Libel Week, the Libel Reform Campaign will be hosting a free event on the effect of our libel laws on documentary film makers. Speakers include:

Tracy Worcester is a documentary film maker who directed and produced the film ‘Pig Business’ (there will be a screening of an extract from this); Christopher Hird is a leading figure in UK independent documentary making and runs Dartmouth Films; Duncan Campbell is an investigative journalist and filmmaker who specialises in privacy, civil liberties and secrecy issues. He has faced successive libel actions for twenty years.

[1]

This is a FREE event. Email: bookings@freewordonline.com to book a place.

THE BIG LIBEL GIG: a tiny number of tickets left!

If you haven’t got tickets for the event of the year so far at the Palace Theatre in London on 14th March you may still have a chance: [2]

We hope to see you at one of the events, and do keep an eye out for coverage of the campaign in the press during Big Libel Week.

Best,

Mike and Síle

18:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

[edit] Dawkins - recap

So saw Dawkins last night and came away....less than impressed. He made a nice lecture but it was a little heavy on the chemistry of evolution and the technical details whereas I think most of the (sold out) crowd would have liked to hear more philosophy and religion. But he was touring on the strength of the new book and not the God Delusion so not too surprising. The question time was only 10 minutes long so I didn't get a chance to ask anything (or pimp RW). All in all, kinda disappointing. So I went home and drank whisky while watching Dawkins vs. Wendy Wright on youtube. I don't know how Dawkins holds his temper.....Aceⁱ⁹ 19:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, he often mentions specifically when pimping The Greatest Show on Earth that he's done the religion thing, this is about evolution. That's his job and his actual career, I assume it must be quite refreshing for him to actually talk about his passion for biology rather than having to repeatedly reiterate his points from TGD. ArmondikoV^{...I'll untie your Angel!} 19:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In the book itself he says "been there, done that" (with regard to religion) ad nauseam. And naturally he conveniently includes the name of the books in which he discusses religion so that he can plug his own stuff. Τe†rоиіαn ^{unintelligently designed} 01:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

He obviously has never prayed to Super Mecha Death Christ 2000 B.C 4.0 Beta--Thanatos (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've only seen Dawkins on t'telly & he's never "personally" impressed me. His Charisma level is near - if not below - zero. He should really stick to writing: at that he's a star! 02:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

I agree toast, I've watched some of his lectures and talks on t'internet, and he's not much of a showman. However I think he performs very well in interviews/debates as he doesn't pull any punches when arguing with religionists. (Did you see him on question time when he kept asking some bearded bloke in a dress what the punishment for apostacy was?) DeltaStar^{Speciationspeed!} 02:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I daren't watch him: it's like seeing your idols smashed. I'd rather keep my image of him from the books. 02:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

Nah, trust me, in a interview/'informal' debate (as opposed to where it's half-hour droning then the other person drone's for half an hour) such as a discussion show or interview with a religionist, he's excellent - not charismatic, just extremely brutal and direct. I like that approach anyway! DeltaStar^{Speciationspeed!} 02:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

You might like to vote here soonish 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

Since I started watching: it's gone from about 48:52 to 25:75 (figures approx). 21:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

Heh! 10:90 now.   ^Contribs_Talk 22:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

at(less than)6: (greater than)94, a comment from a "Guardian of the poll":

“	Oh, I see that PZ Myers is not the only person who encourages the fornication of polls. I have contacted One News Now and have linked this pathetic post to the unusual results of the poll. They now know that the poll hase been fornicated by left wing hate groups. Yes people can change. No one is born gay just like no one is born a serial killer. One's personality and lifestyle choices has much to do with the way they were raised, their surroundings, their parents's faith/non-faith, whether they were abused as a child, etc. many things playa role into how people behave as adults, but things can change. Apparently things like the urges of poll fornication and socialism is not one of the evils that is not easily changed without a little push from the hand of God Himself. Were you born a poll fornicator? Were you born a science teacher? Were you born a math teacher? What makes you think someone was born gay? Is is nice, though, to see the nastiness of PZ MYers rubbing off on his axis comrades.	”
—Posted by: Guardian of the Poll March 10, 2010 7:00 PM (Fair Use)

0:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

Hilarious. ħuman 01:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That is pretty hilarious. I've always thought that the polls they show on cable news channels were biased; now I know just how biased. Τe†rоиіαn ^{block me for 90/10} 01:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

They're fighting back: now under 94% on the side of wronglyness. 01:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

Down to 92% or so. ħuman 03:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

'tain't goin' down half as fast as it went up. 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

They've managed 9:90. At this rate it'll be easter before they get to equality. 09:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

Well, they did ask. I think we should bork with polls more often. If only serve to highlight the numerous fallacies of polls, particularly online ones with a very targeted audience. ArmondikoV^{...I'll untie your Angel!} 18:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks as if they've locked it; at 10.7/_0.69/88.61. 'Twas fun while it lasted. 22:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

[edit] Link

Just for interest, as the Shrine mentions both, here's a link between Ames & Pal.   ^Contribs_Talk 23:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is link? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry. It's there now. Brain work faster than rest of body! 03:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

[edit] We don't need America, we can grow our own nutters.

Woman refused The Pill on religious grounds 02:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

Fucking ridiculous. I've seen similar stories before, particularly for the morning after pill. It kind of pales in to insignificance compared to the muslim shop workers who can refuse handle booze (there was even a case when a muslim was allowed to refuse to move pallets of beer on his forklift truck FFS) In all cases like this, I just want to scream "Yes, you are entitled to believe in whatever stupid superstition you want, but don't expect everyone else to have to put up with it" Pricks. DeltaStar^{Speciationspeed!} 02:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Effing idiots, if they can't do what teh job requires, don't do it, get another one. Like sewing burkas in a sweatshop. ħuman 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. If your religion prevents you from doing a job fully, then why the hell would you apply for it in the first place?

A GP friend of mine - who is a catholic - has made it her mission to inject the contraceptive implant in the girls in her sleepy, Derbyshire village practise. Better that than having to deal with unwanted pregnancies. Despite contraception being against her religion, it's better that than having to carry out an abortion. Bondurant (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It brings us back to an earlier story about the Christian Police Association. They're an evangelical nutjob association for British police, and they don't even pretend to keep their religion out of their work. I don't know if their members actually proselytise and discriminate, but their website certainly makes it clear that their intention is to share good old Jesus with colleagues and the public. I sent a complaint to the Home Office, and I'll await their response. I imagine it will be the usual diversity and inclusive arguments. Those two words are like mantras for the current government, yet I think they do not understand what those words actually mean. I hope the pharmacist in that case gets fucking fired so she can devote her life to more spiritual matters. That kind of shit doesn't help theists. Doesn't it seem risky to hire them for certain types of jobs? --^{Ask me about our gymnasium} 11:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she should be fired. What if the woman had been after the morning after pill and didn't have an alternative pharmacy to go to? Bondurant (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

She makes the best point when she says "I said it was not against my religion" (emphasis added). People shouldn't have their choices held hostage to other people's beliefs, that's pretty much what the whole "freedom" thing means. The thing is, the employee didn't do their job, and that's grounds for either disciplinary action or dismissal. It doesn't matter what the reason is, it "being their religion" isn't really any different from pure laziness or incompetence. ArmondikoV^{...I'll untie your Angel!} 18:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Mexicans

The World's richest man is Mexican Carlos Slim ($53.5bn). Bill Gates is reduced to #2 with a paltry $53bn. 02:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

I just read that article. It's funny, when you start liveblogging the news I sometimes know what you are going to post next. (I'm not complaining, just noting...) :-) Τe†rоиіαn ^{CP = Flatland} 02:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It was on BBC World News. 02:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

I know, that's how I knew! (Funnily enough, my friends can't understand why I read the BBC News even though they acknowledge that US news networks are heavily biased.) Τe†rоиіαn ^{ask me about my gymnasium} 02:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean the U.S. can please have single payer health care now? Thanks in advance. 99.191.72.188 (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:BBC News- my brother went travelling for a year around South America and Asia and found that a lot of people out there actually tend to use BBC as a primary news source. Some people (not just Andy Schlafly) say it has a liberal bias, but I haven't noticed it. SuperJosh ^{Winner of RationalWiki's Biggest N00b Award for 2009} 14:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It has liberas bias because it doesn't say America is the best country in the world and homosexuality, abortion and gun control are the work of Satan. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what Martin said. Schlafly could see liberal bias in his morning cup of coffee; he's not exactly an authority on the subject. Τe†rоиіαn ^{nail-biting Jesus} 14:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BBC's condemned by many far-right commentators (inc. BNP) as being too liberal. But then according to them, what isn't? SuperJosh ^{may be an idiot, but if there's one thing he's not, it's an idiot} 20:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Ependymin antioxidant up-regulation claims

I just added http://www.circuitblue.com/biogerontology/ependymin.html to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ependymin because I can't make heads or tails of the current validity of the claims. I started to read Suárez-Castillo and García-Arrarás (2007) "Molecular evolution of the ependymin protein family: a necessary update" BMC Evolutionary Biology 7:23 PMID 17302986 but I can't figure out whether being a "suitable target to experimentally test subfunctionalization in gene copies that originated after gene or genome duplication events" is useful for figuring out whether the stated life-extension/antioxidant-up-regulation claims make any sense. Please, fellow skeptics, help me. 99.191.72.188 (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There's words in there that I understand but, taken together, I'm afraid it's gibberish to me. I must get out more. 10:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

I;m replying here right now so that I can look it up in the morning easily and get back to you. --Opcn (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Easy work for a lazy 'crat

Blank MediaWiki:Longpagewarning. Its very outdated, the browsers it applies too are all like 0% percent of market share. Do we really want people using IE 4 to browser our website anyways?? lol. Icewedge (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Making it difficult to use IE 4 is doing those users a favour. It'll help encourage them to use a browser that isn't comparable to having random unprotected sex with third world hookers. --^{Ask me about our gymnasium} 18:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried using IE 4 with RationalWiki once. I think it worked better than IE5 (it supports less things, but that means there are less things that can go horribly wrong). But anyway, the warning is useful because large pages are slow to load and some modern browsers (I'm looking at you, Firefox) still slow down noticeably when they have to handle a lot of text. -- Nx / talk 18:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

But its more annoying than useful IMHO, it starts popping up at 32 kb, which is a perfectly reasonable size. Icewedge (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are you trying to destroy Nx's wiki? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Human's wiki. -- Nx / talk 18:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. You are correct. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're using anything that might be affected by editing 32K plus (like a 'phone?) then you'll be aware of it all the time anyway. 18:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

Are there any issues with the server if you edit and then save large chunks? Yes, in a modern context 32kb isn't much (it's the RAM that they used to go to the Moon) but it's still far bulkier than the average amount of data it has to deal with in an average section edit. ArmondikoV^{...I'll untie your Angel!} 18:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really, though it may cause the difference engine to time out if you have two large revisions which differ in a lot of places. The real problem with large pages is all the fancy stuff that has to be parsed. (also with each edit the entire revision is saved into the database, so Kenning is expensive) -- Nx / talk 18:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside (feel free to ignore), why is the entire revision saved? Just so that other revisions can be deleted? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because it's a lot faster than having to apply a hundred diffs. -- Nx / talk 19:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not true, Armondikov! The Apollo computers had 40k of 14bit words = 70kB. So there. DeltaStar^{Speciationspeed!} 19:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking the figure from Every OS Sucks song, where Wes Borg has a thing about emphasising "THIRTY. TWO. KILOBYTES. OF. RAM! If it was good enough to go to the moon, it's good enough for you." 70 kb just doesn't read as well in the song. ArmondikoV^{...I'll untie your Angel!} 19:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Tell that to Blender, Gimp and Inkscape. Especially fucking Inkscape. -- Nx / talk 19:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, doesn't the server not need to parse everything everytime you hit "preview" too? So while you don't clog up RC, if you hit preview it's just as troublesome. ArmondikoV^{...I'll untie your Angel!} 19:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but it's not stored in the database. -- Nx / talk 19:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Troll hiding behind the brain logo

I only just noticed the little troll hiding behind the brain logo on Don't feed the Troll. Nice idea whoever did that. --^{Ask me about our gymnasium} 23:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha! That's clever. Τe†rоиіαn ^{block me for 90/10} 23:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That was me. I thought about also making it a template to use on talk/debate pages which had become trolling zones, but I think we probably have enough troll-related templates already. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It is quite excellent! Congrats, Stoateloid 23:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

Indeed. Nicely done. I like those subtle touches. --^{Ask me about our gymnasium} 23:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Wants one!!!

Flas Gordon here we come!^{Hat tip} Ace, you've gotta get one. 00:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

I'd be afraid that Ace would crash the thing. Flying under the influence and all that. Τe†rоиіαn ^{Mei is useful} 00:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

With one of those I'd be unstoppable! Aceⁱ⁹ 02:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And it's homegrown! You could chase Orcs all over South Island!! 02:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

[edit] PZ strikes agin!

Holy Vegemite, Batman 00:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

[edit] Catholic child abuse in Germany

Google: "Catholic Church" Germany "Child abuse"; 160,000 sites on Google UK! 05:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

[edit] Oh my Crispy Lord!

Another "miraculous" appearance of JC. This time in burned bacon! 06:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

There is the joke that one could probably shove a cowpat in such people's faces and they would see Jesus's visage in it. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What gets me about them is the image they're seeing is the renaissance ideal of JC. 06:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

That at least makes sense; if Jesus wanted to leave a calling-card, he would probably take care to leave one that the person could perceive as a calling-card. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

and what, one may ask, is the king of the Jews doing in bacon? Totnesmartin (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That was exactly my thought, followed by "how insulting must that be to Jews?" followed by, "Oh, it's the Daily Mail. Go figure." Bondurant (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs

Just out of curiosity, why do most blogs have fixed widths rather than using the whole screen? Seems a waste of space to me: those blank areas down each side. 07:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Bad page design? - User = 08:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The assumption that text any wider than that is difficult to read, and the assumption that the user is a moron who can't resize their window and will complain that the page is difficult to read (which is probably correct most of the time). Also fixed layout is much easier to do, they usually don't even bother with max-width to allow it to wrap on smaller screens. -- Nx / talk 08:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And when they fail to realize that not everyone has the exact same fonts and the exact same font settings, it leads to breakage like this. -- Nx / talk 08:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Any other libertarian skeptics want to provide backup?

Over at libertarianwiki creationist asshat keeps piling in creationist garbage and I'd really like some other libertarian skeptics to sign up and put the pwn on. He seems immune to logic so some public shaming might be in order. --Opcn (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I wouldn't want to intrude. Do you think the pair of you can shut out recent changes before the day is out? Bondurant (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is a creationist on a libertarian-minded wiki anyway? Doesn't he know Ayn Rand was a staunch atheist? ^{ONE / TALK} 09:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I know! If you aren't into rescuing libertarianism from that brand of crazy I am not going to hold it against you. --Opcn (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So close to the shut-out, and then Nathan Larson has to go and stick is oar in. Who does he think he is? Good work on the little dig in Oxymoron by the way. Bondurant (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that libertarianism seems to correlate with the anti-science movement so much. I see no logical or ideological reason for that, but it seems to me to be true. DickTurpis (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] BNP members ok to be teachers...

...according to a report commissioned by the government. Ban them from the police and prison services, but not from teaching children??? Anyone who is a member of a racist organisation should not be able to work for a government agency of any kind, where they have a duty to be totally impartial with everyone they deal with. Bondurant (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We allow many people with bigoted beliefs to teach and work in the ploce force. In all cases, except bigots that aren't fortunate enough to be be religions, we assume that they can compartmentalise. We have succeeded in convincing most people to see the problem with racism, but somehow other forms of bigotry continue to be acceptable. ^{Ask me about our gymnasium} 09:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problem. Anyone who's beliefs are in conflict with their public duty shouldn't be in the job in the first place.

Someone who is a member of the BNP is a member of a party that is against inter-racial marriage and for "repatriating" non-whites back to their supposed country of origin. When my wife and I decide to have children, they will be mixed race. The people who would allow BNP members to be teachers are saying I should just be ok with sending them to a state school where a BNP member, with views like that, might teach them, because they've made some half-assed promise to "compartmentalise" their repugnent views.

I'm glad, at least, that we have non-denominational schools in the UK, where they won't be subjected to the good-old classroom prayer so beloved of Schlafly and co., so I can at least keep them largely protected from the worst religious bigots. Bondurant (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that it's impossible and undesirable to ban people from jobs just because of affiliations, perhaps there's a case for having all civil servants agree to a set of principles - something akin to theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights? Realistically, not all Catholics pay a blind bit of notice to what the Pope says. The BNP is a reprehensible organisation, but I'm not sure it's fair to exclude them while still allowing people from various whacky religions to work. Perhaps it's a slippery slope argument, but we should be very cautious when it comes to banning people for belonging to undesirable organisations. --^{Ask me about our gymnasium} 10:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's a difficult decision to make. It's an emotive subject, and I'm sure you can appreciate my concern as an (eventual) parent to a mixed race child, someone who will no doubt have to deal with racism at some point in their future no matter what happens.

A balance needs to be struck between prinicples of freedom and those of responsibility to the vulnerable. Rightfully, we don't let sex offenders into schools as teachers, but in our clamour for safetly, we've taken things too far. In my personal opinion, it's not going too far to ban someone who is an active member of a racist organisation, but I'd never advocate snooping on someone's voting record at a general election, for example. Bondurant (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a valid concern. I think we both know that having rules is one thing, but getting someone to respect the spirit behind them is quite another. Perhaps civil servants, teachers included, should be held to a higher standard in private life than we'd impose on people working in the private sector. The situation is comparable to that of cannabis versus alcohol. Using the former could get me sacked from my job, but I can booze as much as I want so long as it doesn't affect my ability to do my job. Membership of the BNP sends a pretty strong message, but then I'd say the same of anyone who'd strongly identify with the Catholic Church. Yup, snooping in to voting records would be a step too far. --^{Ask me about our gymnasium} 10:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We can't have it both ways. The BNP has (unfortunately) been legitimised as a political entity, and in my opinion we can no more ban people from certain careers for being a member of the BNP than we can for being a member of the Tufty Club. However, that brings it back to the argument of whether they should be a legitimate political party. That is a much tougher question. Personally, I think they're racist, bigoted assholes that deserve all the criticism that can be brought their way - but I'm not sure that supressing them as an organisation is the way to go. Worm^{(t | c)} 10:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)