RationalWiki:Saloon bar

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

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

edit

Recovery

The first thing we need to do is get re-indexed by search engines. If you have a blog or other dynamically updated site please consider picking your favorite RW page and tossing a link over our way to prod the bots. tmtoulouse 23:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Will this require fresh links or simply clicking on existing links? Either way, i can get some stuff rolling.-- -PalMD ^--Do not read my blog 02:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea is to just post a blog post or something that google will index quickly with a link to an RW page, and hope that the bot following the link will realize the site is back up. tmtoulouse 02:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I googled Andrew Schlafly and we were nowhere to be seen. Sad. ħuman 03:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should remove my nasty public comments on Google now? ~ JonG ~ 23:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

GENTLEMEN OPERATION BRAINS HAS BEGUN!!11!11 --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The over-written pages will need what was on them before the 8/19 or so diff that says "new page" copied to archives. ħuman 00:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, what's a wiki? What's this space for? What's a user page? I feels like an alternate reality. Sterile lisp 00:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, i got some new links up to get indexed. The first set went up on WCU last night, the next set goes up on science-based medicine this afternoon.-- -PalMD ^--Do not read my blog 12:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added some too - the ones I thought important. maybe give us a list of which ones people think are most NB and we can add them accordingly. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 17:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jinx's blog comments doesn't mark the homepage external link no follow . - π 00:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Google search for teh assfly has us back in the running!-- -PalMD ^--Do not read my blog 01:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A few Blogger posts probably give the Googlebot a kick start. Генгис^evolving 06:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In the Garden of Eden

Going to redo the question I put up on Trent's blog. Would it have been right for Adam and Eve to destroy the tree of knowledge, as they were only told not to eat off of it? And please, use your imagination as to how to destroy it, I go with talking dinosaurs.--Tabris (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

They were trying to destroy it! They started by eating its fruit... next would come the twigs, branches, and roots. ħuman 04:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? The only way to destry teh evil tree o' knowledge was to throw it deep into the fires of Mount Doom, in the Heart of Mordor, where the shadows lie... SJ ^Debaser 10:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, accepting the ridiculous premise of the question, there would be no right or wrong about it as they were innocent of what it was. It was just a tree to them and as they had been given dominion over the Earth destroying it would have been an acceptable option, especially during winter when burning a bit of old wood might keep the chill away from those naked bodies. Генгис^evolving 19:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We're back just in time

Thank goodness we're back.... I almost died on Thursday and need my Rationalwiki support group. This week at the Auraria campus has been fall fest. It's a great little festival, with groups from all over campus setting up tables and trying to get members. During the course of the festival, I spoke to many different religious groups including Christians (Baptist, Methodist and Catholic (I royally pissed off the Catholic table by the way)) Jews (Reform and Orthodox) and Muslims. At the very end of the line, there was a table labeled Menorah Ministries. I had never heard about them, so I started looking at some of their literature. Turns out to be a Messianic Judaism group, which is fine. I start talking to the guy and can tell right away that he's a little.... we'll just say off. Anyway, so then I look down and see this piece of shit book on the table.] He saw the look on my face and said, I swear "This man is one of the most brilliant thinkers of our time." I almost choked to death on my own saliva. I got into a little mini argument with some of the problems is that book (I literally had him open to a random page and I just found the first fallacy and attacked it) He comes back with the whole "well, I guess you're proving him right" speech. I just responded by saying "I'm not an Atheist; I just like nonfiction books better." Then I left, still shaking. However, I do believe I got the last laugh; I wondered back over to the Orthodox Judaism table and casually mentioned what he was saying at his table. They were not happy and were talking about sending someone over to have a talk with him. If you read on the news that some Orthodox Jews beat the shit of a Menorah Ministries guy, you never saw me. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 09:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't conceive of the level of delusion required to conclude that Ray Comfort is a brilliant thinker. I'm fairly sure that guy requires medication. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The UK Amazon has the tag "arsewater" for "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Cant Make Him Think" (along with complaints that it isn't possible to give a negative number of star reviews). The man is clearly a military-grade fuckwit Silvermute (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a simple matter of perspective. If you were talking to Einstein and he was struck by lightning, instantly doubling his IQ would you notice any difference? All you have to be is one percent cleverer than someone and you look brilliant to them. Ray's arguments are brilliant. Atheists are wrong, they will instantly disagree and they will say false things; so by disagreeing with him you are proving him more right. - π 09:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

People like VenomFang think that they can prove the existence of gOD in seven words (or something like that) and they attract a bevy of followers who shriek "Wow, he's so right!" just because it supports their own preconception/delusion/religion. These people don't even approach the act of "thinking", like PJR they just regurgitate what someone else has spouted and fail to recognise the contradictions. Thanks for reminding me, Chuck, just why I started editing at CP and why I believe in our mission here. Генгис^evolving 18:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Aw, don't use "fag" as an insult... and Pi, yeah, I agree. You can tell how "smart" people dumber than you are, but you can't tell how much "smarter" someone smarter than you is. ħuman 19:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that was a typo. Генгис^evolving 06:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Eliezer Yudkowsky at lesswrong.com came up with the idea that all people over one standard deviation above your own IQ start to blur together when it comes to judging intelligence. Seems reasonable to me. (That was horrible phrasing, sorry. I can't write currently.) Clepper ^{is fallible} 01:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Atheist's Guide To Christmas

Thought I'd give a shout out to Ariane Sherine's next project following on from where the Atheist bus campaign left off, The Atheist's Guide to Christmas. 42 writers, entertainers, comedians and scientists all contribute, and it's a pretty impressive line-up: Richard Dawkins, Charlie Brooker, Ben Goldacre, Jenny Colgan, David Baddiel, Simon Singh, AC Grayling, Brian Cox and Richard Herring. And a few more that Ariane have said are writing. Believer or not, it'll probably be far, far more entertaining that You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence... or The Dawkins Delusion. ^{d hominem} 14:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommend. Even if it only had half the contributors and even if the profits were not going to a good cause it would still be essential reading. As it is I'll be bulk buying for Christmas stockings. Err.. solstice stockings. Err... It's bloody cold and we need an excuse to party stockings. Bob Soles (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Mrs Khant and I try and avoid these religious celebrations. We hide away in our yurt with some figgy pudding, a Colston Bassett and a mixed case of festive beverages. BTW we had a recent get together of friends and I decided to open one of my bottles of Croft '63 which I bought back in 1978. Twas delicious. Генгис^evolving 16:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

British Christmas is mostly secular nowadays anyway, isn't it? All you need to change to make it fully non-Christian is to change channels during the Service from Westminster Abbey and you're done. What's Christmas Day like in the United McDocracy of Colonia? Totnesmartin (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A lot of casual lip service (people wishing each other a Merry one). For some time now the big stores have been open on Xmas day. Apart from the actual War on Zmas, it's pretty secularized. And, oh yeah, traffic and shopping get really bad in December. ħuman 19:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Lots of pretty lights in rich neighborhoods and awkward moments when you realize you don't have change for the Salvation Army. Malls become unbearable, rush hour doubly so. Clepper ^{is fallible} 01:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a fun read. To buy, to buy ....--Bob^{Not Jim} 09:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Preventing server collapse

While anything can happen, 90 percent of the time when the website goes down it is fixed by simply restarting the server. Our nearly 3 week long outage was fixed in less than 10 seconds when I got home by pushing the reset button. A large amount of our intermittent downtime could be avoided if this were to be automated. It would also greatly reduce the chances of a repeat incident during my travels.

I will be traveling a lot this coming year. In fact, I am leaving for Chicago for a week in a month. I would like to invest in some power management hardware that can auto detect when the website is off line and reset the machine/modem/network switch, etc.

I will be putting up a mini-fundraiser for people who want to pitch in and help. Based on the response I get for that I will get the best possible hardware I can for the money donated to help manage this problem in the future.

If you are able and willing to toss a few dollars my way I am sure every user of the site would appreciate it. Hey if Kent Hovind's son can raise $200,000 dollars to save Dino Adventure Land we should be able to get a few hundred dollars to keep this site alive. tmtoulouse 23:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you buy one of these to do the job of hitting the reset button when you aren't there to do it. That should solve more or less all your problems at a stroke. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks like the toy we need. Trent? ħuman 22:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And if you need any suggestions on what to do whilst in Chicago, let me know. Z3ro^talk 13:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

De-CPying the main space

Before the crash ToP and a friend decided to start a de-CPying of the mainspace. I quite like this idea, as most of the in jokes about Conservapedia are little of putting to non CP-centric readers. How does the mob feel and what do we do about it? Also sorry to AP about reverting your edits without first raising this here, I forgot that the discussion about this was only a few hours old before the crash. - π 00:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This was, in my eyes at least, only about getting rid of the pointless and lame connections and links. Stuff like where people have written "some people" and wiki-linked every other word to random CP sysops. Articles where CP has a famous (or infamous) article on the subject, or the right-wing/fundamentalist opinion is best described by Conservapedia, then the links and mentions should stay. The boxes like the CP template we were planning on expanding to include a more general "wikisphere" mentality. ^{d hominem} 08:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I liked the idea at the time and I still do. My tweak was that I would add more links to other wikis. Ideally, have one honkin' great template that allows CP, WP, aSK, and anything else to get a link. I don't think RW should be afraid of linking to wingbut sites and it would be helpful if it can act as a hub on topics of interest. SuspectedReplicant 08:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that if it is necessary to link to other wonky wikis to make a point then that's fine. I'd say that CP should no longer hold pride of place in the wonky wiki world - but equally we shouldn't go out of our way to link to any of them. Furthermore, if we do link to them it should be clear to an "outsider" what they are and why the link exists.--Bob^{Not Jim} 09:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a look at making a "wikisphere" template. Though I have no idea exactly how best to implement it. Perhaps just stick the WP and CP templates inside a box, like the userbox boxes, and make it collapsible. ^{d hominem} 12:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

e.g., here. Though obviously, integrated better, but my wiki-fu is probably not up to scratch on that yet. ^{d hominem} 12:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the collapsible boxes in a box idea - how about the template has a series of simple parameters like WP, CP, ASK, WS, etc that activate those inner boxes, and allows a line of text with a link for wikis we haven't automated yet? ħuman 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

All in the Family

Given it's cultural significance, and the fact that I'm a huge fan, would it be alright if I do an article on this classic example of American television?--Tabris (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know what it is about, but when I hear TV show my first reaction is likely off-mission. What are you looking to say about it? - π 02:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

'"The program you are about to see is All in the Family. It seeks to throw a humorous spotlight on our frailties, prejudices, and concerns. By making them a source of laughter we hope to show, in a mature fashion, just how absurd they are." That sounds a little like us. Besides,haven't you ever heard of the "Archie Bunker" Vote?--Tabris (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but I do not live in the US and not all of their pop culture makes it our way. Have you heard of a donkey vote? - π 02:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The asshole vote?--Tabris (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, not culturally relevant, as we have a different electoral system. How about you write the article and I will learn from it? - π 02:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

American popular culture? Actually it was a rip-off of Till Death Us Do Part. Генгис^evolving 06:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and write it, as it's an example of a political parody. If worst comes to worst, we can debate later if it is off mission. But it has a significance in that it made fun of what was left over from the "Leave It To Beaver" conservative generations.Lord of the Goons (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

@Genghis that was what I thought when I looked it up. - π 10:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Online behaviour.

So if somebody from our little community was engaging in online behaviour that might not reflect well on them, would it be in our place to call them out on it? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Depends, in my opinion. Does it reflect poorly on our community or just them?Lord of the Goons (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Does it affect RationalWiki? - π 04:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it effects RW as such--but we are "the vandal site"--we are ALL tarred with the same brush no matter what. Prolly not a big deal. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Short of a name change we are always going to be known as that, because, lets face it, RationalWiki 1.0 was pretty much a place to plan wandalism of CP. We have moved past it but the name has stuck. - π 04:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

-

If it reflects poorly on us, then I'd say go ahead. If not, then let them misbehave in their life, since it is their own. If you are unsure, then just give us a general idea of what without giving too much information, and the mob can be the judge. If it doesn't really matter, then let it go.Lord of the Goons (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What we are talking about is user:Proxima Centauri? Or am I wrong? Please, people, name names if you are going to name names. ħuman 04:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No. You're right--we may be a mobocracy, but we're not a mob. One of us is not all of us, and if one of us is doing something that another one finds a little distasteful, so be it. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

FUCK YOU, YOU COMMUNIST FUCKTARDSend random outburst Javasca₧ my sig is my own opiate! 04:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it me? Do tell ToP. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 04:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Glad that is sorted, can we now move on to some of the site rebuilding problems above? - π 04:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to be home. Oh, it's so nice to be home. (ECx4) Shut up, Pi. ħuman 04:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Exorzize Cheezbrgrz for cn etz! Tarantallegra (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Tarantallegra (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Tara. You're not famous you've just been had by the evil Template:USERNAME trick in Javascap's sig. Генгис^evolving 12:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You could always send 'em an email if they have it enabled. SuspectedReplicant 08:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it me with all my accounts on Cp? o.O Silly Mr. Cat 09:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know what it was! No one around here gets my sense of humor. Just not cut out for this site. Tarantallegra 22:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Explained

Intelligent Design Explained; apparently it was a poker game between Satan and God with the foreskin being the stakes... ^{d hominem} 09:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I love how they have NZlander accents. Very funny, but also blasphemous - "slaughter a goat!" SJ ^Debaser 12:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No no, it was God lighting his fart. _{Damnit why do they keep removing all the good clips off youtube?} Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

How is it possible?

The section two above makes me sad. How is it possible that people would donate a third of million dollars to a convicted fraudster so that he could keep his fraudulently obtained property? I don't really keep up to date on the antics of Kent Hovind, but they're usually good for a laugh when I do hear of them. This particular thing however just depresses me. Can't people think of better things to do with their money than keep some yokel crime family in style to which they've become accustomed? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is fucking awful. Farah can raise $125,000 to prop WorldNutDaily up to help with his billboards campaign to expose the truth about Obama. It seems that if you can get people emotionally invested enough in something they will hand over cash to them with little regards about to what happens to it. - π 11:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's the one flaw in the wingnut dream of "you can spend your money better than the government can!"... the one flaw being "it's bollocks". ^{d hominem} 11:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK you guys, if you don't cough up for RW's emergency reset function then the kitten gets 10,000 volts. Генгис^evolving 12:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That could also explain it... ^{d hominem} 12:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sending video files

I'm about to send some chunks of digital video off to become part of a DVD that someone's making. what's the best way of doing this?

copy files to cdr

copy files to dvdr

record watchable files to dvdr

I'm not very technical about these things, I just point the camera... Totnesmartin 12:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess just save the files (MPEGs?) onto DVD-Rs and post those. If you burn as a watchable DVD then they'll probably have to convert them back to reauthor the DVD. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok I'll do that then unless somebody here goes NOOOOO before I go to Moprrison's. Totnesmartin 15:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Popular British Names

I remember Andy claiming that Mohammed was the most popular name in Britain and being roundly slapped by people who prefer to check their facts. Can't remember where the "debate" was though. In any case, the BBC has a new list and Mohammed is in 16th place overall, although it gets up to #2 in the West Midlands. If anybody is interested... SuspectedReplicant 13:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Full data from here. To be fair, if you add the count for "Mohammed", "Muhammad" and "Mohammad" together, it would be in 3rd place overall. I'm disappointed to see Robert down in 89th place though. SuspectedReplicant 13:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought this thread was going to be related to this article "Britain's naughtiest names". Генгис^evolving 13:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

CP conversation here. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 13:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! I thought it was a World History lecture but I couldn't find it. SuspectedReplicant 13:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that's interesting. Though it's not exactly cause-and-effect with names (there's that theory that names do make a person but it's mostly woo-woo that I can tell). Think of the kind of parents who call their kid Chardonnay (which got popular after Footballer's Wives started IIRC) and you see that the link can be pretty valid. ^{d hominem} 13:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, around here, Sidney/Sydney is a popular name for both boys and girls, due to our popular hockey player. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 13:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Chardonnay? Good grief. Some people really shouldn't be allowed to have kids at all. SuspectedReplicant 13:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) That was my snobbish take on it as well. Parents who give names that echo celebrity culture (lawks a mercy, I'm sounding like Andy) are probably not the ones who would encourage their kids to sit down and read a nice book. While those who call their kids Alice, Benjamin or Daniel are most likely to have traditional mores and encourage their kids to do well at school. Генгис^evolving 13:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

When I am in charge after taking over the world with Trent's mind control powers, I shall ban any names which are a) already English words; b) contain the letters x or z and c) are "Tiffany". Educated stupid Hoover! 14:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This whole "your name defines you" is a bit bollocks. I'm named after a war god and I don't go conquering empires, although I did glare rather sternly at someone on the bus the other day. Totnesmartin 14:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it strangely funny thinking of a war god called "Martin". Educated stupid Hoover! 14:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that it proves anything, but Jesus and Mary - or rather their Spanish equivalents - must be the most popular names in Spain. Some people have both.--Bob^{Not Jim} 14:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My name seems to be increasing in popularity and is getting towards the top 50, however, I have yet to find one of those souvenir mugs / pens / gonks with my name on it. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never met or heard of anyone with my name and spelling outside of Ireland. Educated stupid Hoover! 14:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never met anybody anywhere called Phantom Hoover. Totnesmartin 15:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never met anyone with the last name Bizarro. Educated stupid Hoover! 15:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's because it's not my real name. Totnesmartin 18:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Duh. Yes, that's a reference to Andy's complaint. Educated stupid Hoover! 18:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about this I now understand the issue. The Catholic Church used to be very powerful in Spain, and they were hot on boys and girls being called either Jesus or Mary - so every child automatically got this name as either a first or second name. And this no matter what the parents wishes were - when baptism came 'round the priest would add it automatically in addition to the chosen name. Of course everybody was not actually called Mary or Joseph in real life (though some were), as that would have been too confusing. Now I'm going to make a guess about Mohamed. My guess is that all Muslim male children are called Mohamed in the same way that all Spanish boys were called Jesus. That's obviously going to skew the statistics somewhat - but it hardly means that the UK is suddenly a Muslim country.--Bob^{Not Jim} 14:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Also in the Beeb British teachers can spot trouble makers by name alone. Apparently 'Callum' is a definite no-no. As that's an alternative spelling for my (real) name I have to agree. Bob Soles 14:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like an also also (see Britain's Naughtiest Names above). Генгис^evolving 14:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Callums are naughty? Callumny! I'm sorry... Educated stupid Hoover! 15:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Considering the wide variety of "christian" names, it doesn't take much to become most common. Say, a really low 5% minority group with 50% having the same name in there somewhere (probably do to what you say regarding it being semi-compulsory) still gives a whopping 2.5% of the total population with the same name. Even with these low figures I've pulled out of my arse, this name becomes more common than the most common name among my friends (which is Sarah, best that I can tell). ^{d hominem} 15:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The full list is weirdness itself. Alfie at #6? Have you ever met anyone called Alf? If I ever met one, I'd expect him to be a jolly, rotund, mid-forties publican. Charlie at #7... apparently people aren't content with being called Charles and having a matey version for their friends. Also, Cameron is the name of a hot terminator, not a name for your baby boy. Additionally, when the hell did Ruby come back? And why aren't there any Ekaterins, dammit. (Edit: Also, Lexie? Do you want your kid to be a hooker, stripper or porn star?) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never met a female Cameron, but at least one male one. Educated stupid Hoover! 15:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it may well now become popular. Plus there's David Cameron. Oh, no, wait... --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Re Spain - Maria is definitely the most common female name, although a majority are called a variation and don't actually use the Maria part (eg Maria de los Angeles would usually be known simply as Angeles). Jesus is a common name but nowhere near Jose or Antonio.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Cameron is more popular in Scotland. I knew several when I lived up there. I agree about Lexie though. SuspectedReplicant 15:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Scottish data is here. Muhammad/Mohammed show up in 82nd/96th and would be 50th if combined - significantly lower than the England/Wales figure. Which probably isn't that surprising. What stands out for me is that the top boys names are fairly standard, (Jack, Lewis, Daniel) while the top girls generally seem to be middle-class oriented (Sophie, Emily, Olivia) or that simply my bias showing through? For a real laugh, the full Scottish list is here - yes 2 people called their son A Worm ^{(t | c)} 15:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Two As but no Qs? If you name your baby Q, I suppose you have to worry that your kid might grow up either to be a brilliant engineer or the biggest trekkie nerd imaginable. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's hilarious! Don't they know "A" is a girl's name??? SuspectedReplicant 16:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC²) My guess is that the name of "Mohammed" has reached that prominence in Britain because there is no single name that is nearly as popular among the British as "Mohammed" is among Muslims. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit. "Precious-Alexia" and "Princess-Vanessa". These babies should be taken in to care and renamed, immediately. Also, a see some cake related bullying in the future for Sarah-Leigh. One can only hopes she doesn't ever get fat. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

4 Cs. Computer nerd parents, evidently. Educated stupid Hoover! 16:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hah. When they have grandkids, instead of C Jr. they can be called c-plus-plus. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Assuming this is the population as a whole, I think I'm on it (and I'm unique!). As an unrelated aside, there are at five spellings of "Matilda" there. Educated stupid Hoover! 16:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So not so much waltzing but enough for a good line dance? --Kels 21:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, no, it's only 2008 births. Awww. I'm not special any more. Educated stupid Hoover! 17:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

20 years ago I won a muffin with the answer to the trivia question "what's the most common first name in the world?" At Bob M, that is exactly correct. Many many male Muslims have Mohammed as their first name, and of course is a middle name and last name that makes them distinguishable (Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi..), or simply fame (Mohammed Ali). ħuman 22:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

GOP Rebuttal to Obama's TV appearance

Made me laugh. SuspectedReplicant 16:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so that's where you get senators from! ^{d hominem} 08:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikiindex

There must be something in the water... Educated stupid Hoover! 17:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I anon-edited on that site for about a year before creating an account and it was just your average low-traffic wiki with a vaguely useful mission. The last few days have been astonishing. SuspectedReplicant 17:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's mainly Proxima; the insanity of the other admins has only been shown up by her actions. Educated stupid Hoover! 17:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm completely unable to understand what the issues are, and I lack the will to work through all the (re-arranged) posts to figure it out.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There are no issues. There was an argument about RW's page that is now moot since it's back up again. Nobody at all has raised any issues about the other sites involved. SuspectedReplicant 18:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So why did the admins delete the entries for some four or five wikis? I asked for an explanation there but not much was forthcoming.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That, dear sir, is the big question. If one of the admins would read their damn talk pages and reply then maybe we could move on. Having Lumenos spraying over the site on a regular basis isn't helping either. SuspectedReplicant 18:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Having PC be the only active sysop and Lumenos being a hyperactive editor sure makes for a perfect storm in wiki-land... ħuman 22:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

After having read some of his edits a WikiIndex, can I reverse my decision to sysop him here on the grounds, that like CUR, he is completely unsuitable to have any above the most basic editing tools? - π 23:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Gets my vote. The Luminous Gentleman is generally illiterate and incapable of communicating with Pan troglodytes, let along our species. However, if he/she/it does nothing wrong here...? ħuman 04:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Gets my veto. If they aren't misbehaving here, then what is accomplished to promote them, other than to give them cause to continue their BS outside of our grasp?Lord of the Goons 04:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Lumenos has delusions of competence. No RW action should be taken as long as (s)he doesn't affect us directly. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 08:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's actions here that count. But getting back to Luminous at Wikiindex - I've never seen anybody create so much chaos under the guise of clarifying things. Perhaps we should leave well alone?--Bob^{Not Jim} 09:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've had enough. I'll stick to updating stats, fixing typos, and adding any new wikis I find, which is what I used to do. I'm certainly not responding to his latest leakage on my talk page. SuspectedReplicant 10:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Fuck Max Baucus!!!

Corperatist piece of shit is really pissing me off right now!!!! Need I elaborate?Lord of the Goons 21:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As the only Montanan in the house I hear you. In face Baucus spoke at my graduation and while introducing him, his role in health care reform was mentioned and I have never seen anyone look so pissed (by the way it was one of the worst speeches in history). Our Representative got in a major boating accident recently and ended up in the hospital. I really wish it had been Baucus instead so he could have seen what he is doing. Yorick 22:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC) _{I wonder if insurance covers taking your head out of your ass?}

Exactly. If that piece of crap ruins healthcare reform like he is trying to do, I will gladly donate to ANY Republican who opposes him, because at least then I don't have to be fighting the same side I'm (trying to be) on.Lord of the Goons 23:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama's speech tomorrow night is going to make history, for better or for worse. ħuman 02:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this the guy responsible for the "Baucus plan: No public option, but $3,800 fine for families without health insurance". Eh? How the fuck is that remotely sensible?!? ^{d hominem} 08:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Won't anyone PLEASE think of the children?

Kinda funny. TheoryOfPractice 22:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I for one appreciate how it focuses on BOTH sides. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ secret trainer of rifles! 22:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Democrats are awesome.. I got that much. Except for the fact that.. oh wait.. wrong place to post that. RandomSock 22:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What Javascap said. Also, this paranoia about parents "indoctrinating" their children is helping no one. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do the liberal books and t-shirts rank higher than their conservative counterparts?--Tabris 02:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the order is less important than usual, it is more point-counterpoint. - π 02:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

While the Democrat ones are more disturbing, the Republican ones are, as we've come to expect, a bit more hateful. The Why Mommy Is a Democrat is just plain wrong... ^{d hominem} 08:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was all quite amusing. <joke>Personally I wear a plain white t-shirt and get harangued by all sides.</joke>--Bob^{Not Jim} 09:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, plain white t-shirts promote atheism. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the number 4 one with the kids hiding under the blanket: "not today, gay marriage!" SJ ^Debaser 10:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

More scientific proof of creationism

Take a look at this article in The Guardian about an ecosystem that has slowly evolved in isolation inside a defunct volcano for the last 200,00 years. Just more proof that evolution is a crock of shit.Lord of the Goons 00:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And just so I don't ruffle feathers, I was being sarcastic in my support of creationism.Lord of the Goons 00:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice find, and I think we get your sarcasm ;) ħuman 02:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, I know. I just get paranoid sometimes, cuz not everyone gets my sarcasm all the time, and I was afraid there might be one this time.Lord of the Goons 02:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Fuck 'em if they can't get a joke... ħuman 03:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

GOONIE, you're a believer?!?!? SJ ^Debaser 11:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

EBILUTION!!!!!

[1] (no comment) ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ is writing a comment 03:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Phew, I've never heard of TYT before so it looked like that might have gone onto a crazy-rant for a second (GOD DIDN'D MAKE NO MOLY-COOLS!!!). But he has a point, they have to spend more money to replace them and most wingnuts like to go on about not wasting cash... ^{d hominem} 08:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Privacy question

Okay one CPian linked to their blog from their user page, so under the way we interpret the privacy policy that is okay. However they were also dumb enough to follow their blog from their Facebook profile. I now know their full name and have a picture of them. Is that a naughty or not? I am leaning towards bad, but I did not follow anything other than what they themselves gave us. - π 11:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If they put it on the internet, they can't expect it to remain private. TheoryOfPractice 11:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

But I still feel a little uncomfortable with it. - π 11:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

as well you should. I'm NOT saying "post it." But there's certainly little "wrong" with essentially moving some links from one part of the tube to another...TheoryOfPractice 11:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Last time I got involved in a privacy debate, things didn't work out so well, so I think I'll stay out of this one... SuspectedReplicant 11:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Clicking links that they themselves have posted really isn't wrong. If you're typing it into Google, doing your own research and assembling cross-referenced info to track them down, that's wrong. Still, of course, don't post it here, we're not interested! :D Now, the difficult one regarding "feeling naughty" I find is that anyone access the Facebook profiles of pretty much most of the kids who use CP because they joined the CP Facebook group, which is publicly listed (although there's probably a private and hidden one too, I reckon) and readily comes up as a related link in the "Conservapedia is the dumbest shit I've read" group. Sometimes it's more difficult to avoid such knowledge than it is gaining such knowledge. ^{d hominem} 11:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay then seeing as it is just the outside profile. Everyone [redacted]. - π 11:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So that's the poor man you keep baiting and inducing Shukky's in. I see this becoming a controversial area if it gains notice, so just for the record I'd like to state that I'm against revealing information like this (even though, as Pi said, it is just the outside profile). SJ ^Debaser 12:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

He is trying to make his blog look more popular by following it himself, so I kid of lost sympathy for him on that point. I was amused that a middle aged, middle of road looking guy like that would call us "penisbone-stuffed butts". - π 12:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the day, everything you do on the internet is NOT anonymous. If you happen to have found out a fellow RWian's name and picture, then so what? You could point this out to them in a friendly way in case they arn't aware and are worried. Provided you don't start plastering their details across this site the next time you have an argument with then I don't think it's an issue. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, not another privacy clusterfuck! Even if he did link to it himself, let's just not go there. We should be attacking the message, not the messenger, right? Totnesmartin 12:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Do you want me to zap the last ten edits to this page? I am kind of leaning that way. - π 12:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave our old friend alone. - π 12:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit of a grey area, since he linked to it himself rather than someone googling likely names, so no need to hide this thread I think - but let's lose the link. Totnesmartin 12:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted it edits already. If anyone wants to see his ugly mug they all know how now. Must say I was a bit disappointed, I always kind of imagined him smaller and scragglier. - π 12:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone find it odd that he is facebook friends with PZ Myers? ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 13:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

He has a virtual hard-on for Myers, he threw a fit at me when I mentioned he was kicked of his blog for trolling. I think he was heart broken. - π 13:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not directly related but still worth reading... Slashdot has the news on that Wired writer who was trying to stay hidden. Basically, anybody who thinks they're anonymous on the net is wrong. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 16:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I once tried to track myself down, it was alarmingly easy. ^{d hominem} 19:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well you did know who you were looking for. Генгис^evolving 08:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

True, but you can narrow it down and make some educated guesses just by taking info that I've let slip about the place. Though it's likely no-one has paid attention to the info required so I'm probably safe. ^{d hominem} 16:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ten CC's of wolfsbane, STAT!!!!

If homeopaths ran emergency rooms...TheoryOfPractice 11:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the third or fourth time that sketch has been posted here... --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is... but it's still worth watching one more time :) SuspectedReplicant 11:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's footnoted in the homeopathy article, but regardless, the Mitchell and Webb stuff on alt medicine and religion is hilarious. Did you see the Nutritionist one too? "Tell her that there's lots of fat in crisps! It's irrelevant, but at lest it's true." ^{d hominem} 11:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's good to know that we engage in recycling. Генгис^evolving 12:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Derren Brown: The Events

Anyone else looking forward to this? The first one is tonight, apparently where he's going to predict the National Lottery results... an impressive stunt. He'd done something similar with The Method, which involved just exploiting statistical probabilities (i.e., following over 7000 people and eventually eliminating them down and just broadcasting the one person that had the winning streak), but with the probabilities behind the lottery (13,983,816 combinations, which if you alotted 10 seconds to reading out the numbers, it'd take 4 years in total to read out), that's just not an option. The guy is a master at manipulation and misdirection so maybe it's just a ploy to get people watching and he just says "it's impossible" on screen; he has hinted that his Russian Roulette was just playing the audience. With this guy, however, anything can happen, and I'm definitely looking forward to seeing what he comes up with. ^{d hominem} 12:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

He's definitely got some interesting stunts but from what I've seen most of them are psychological. I saw David Blaine when he stayed in a box in London a few years ago. That was just weird. SJ ^Debaser 12:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The Russian Roulette one was interesting, but after the guy counted from 1-6 at the end, I got the same two numbers Brown did. There was a very slight emphasis on the two numbers involved. SuspectedReplicant 12:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much psychological as psychological, magical, illusional (is that even a word?) misdriectional (that definitely isn't a word) and importantly, all of these together without him telling anyone which is which. Hence some of his powers of prediction in the live shows are just using a bit of sleight of hand to sneak in something he wrote after the event (no powers of prediction or manipulating people to choose what he wants necessary). ^{d hominem} 12:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Watched the lottery thing last night. Odd. He had already written the numbers on a set of balls, which were facing away during the draw. Turned on the telly to watch the draw, and wrote the numbers down. The balls were in full view for the whole period, and after he had written the result down he turned round his set of balls, and got 6/6. Very odd. I can't wait to see how he did it. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 07:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the peeps 'round the Internet are suggesting either he did it the same was as with the horse racing and coin tossing, but that's bollocks. Other suggestions are split screens, which are possible, but very difficult to do live with hand held cameras. Well, we'll find out later. ^{d hominem} 10:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, got it. It is split screen, but the camera is not hand held (linky, watch in HD). The whole intro was prerecorded up until after they show the shot from the camera at the back. They then switch to a live, stationary feed with split screen so someone can add the balls to the rack after they are called (there is a clear 24 seconds after the last ball is drawn before Derren moves over). The "hand held camera wobble" is artificially added. Stare at the ball rack throughout; if it was a large chunky handheld camera then even a slight movement would change the perspective of the ball rack and the wall behind it. Doesn't happen. Also, look at 2:04, the far left ball pops up the rack a little, and ends up higher than it was. This is when they merged the feeds. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah it's not camera tricks, that's not Derren's style. Watch his left hand as the numbers are read out. He has it over his mouth the entirely time and you can clearly see his jaw moving. He had magnetic numbers in mouth, either he regurgitated them or he puts them in his hand as he takes the pen cap off. He arranges them in his hand using his tounge as they are read out and swallows the unused ones (he doesn't say a word during the whole read out). Once the numbers are out he writes them on the board with his right hand, while placing the magnetic numbers on the bottom with his left hand. He then walks over to the balls, hovers the board over them so the magnets transfer and then turns them around. Just a theory. Jaxe 13:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It was a little too late for my time-zone but I recorded it and will watch this evening over a couple of bottles of Shiraz. I agree with Jaxe that a straight camera trick would be unlike Derren. Other tricks perhaps but a camera trick is not clever enough. Генгис^evolving 14:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What was the point of the camera at the back of the room then? They only switched to it once, which I think was an excuse to switch feeds. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The second camera maybe for the reveal program where he shows how he did it. Maybe you can see how it works from the 2nd angle. Jaxe 15:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the magnetic numbers idea is good, but at no point does he press the back of the board against the balls, so although possible I don't think that's what he did. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's a tricky bastard so it's probably simpler than both the "magnetic numbers in his mouth" (not even the Masked Magician is that silly :p) and camera tricks really aren't his style, like stooges, it would defy the point entirely. But still, let's wait and see. ^{d hominem} 17:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A case for healthcare reform?

Andy and his like think this is the way to go? "Me and the passenger both had to get cut out of the car. It was terrible. It was horrible and my whole thought process was 'I can't get in this ambulance because I am not going to be able to afford it. I am not going to be able to go to the emergency room. I mean, I am in a wreck where I almost died and I am worried about getting treatment because I am not going to be able to afford it. Like I am not going to set foot in that ambulance because it is, I think around $11,000 a ride." ... "She tells me that she has thought of trying to live in Britain, or Canada or France. She can't believe that she lives in the richest country in the world, with some of the best medical treatment, but is excluded from it." ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 12:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe she should call into Glen Beck's radio show and try to tell that story... Someone on another forum tried to convince me (and others) that "competition in the insurance industry will solve this", but that's bullshit, it's quite clear, especially from this that competition in the insurance industry has caused the US to be in this position. If it wasn't for competition and the need to stay profitable and afloat, insurance companies would have no trouble insuring her for those drugs and Big Pharma would have no trouble giving them to her insurance or otherwise. ^{d hominem} 13:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Said individual mentioned in the previous post has just accused me of condoning murder because I said "yes, stuff like this happens in hospitals all the time" when he presented the case of "Baby Jayden" as conclusive proof that the NHS doesn't work. As well as a few extra rants saying that I was a bleak, stinking, miserable socialist he then goes on to say how "In America (praised be it's name) care isn't denied to anyone!" which is quickly followed "they may be billed for it, but that doesn't matter". I'm going to have to step away from the keyboard, I'm being very restrained with this cock right now... ^{d hominem} 20:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Barry's speech starts in about 15 minutes. Fox "News" will not be airing it. ħuman 23:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

They have a giant WATCH LIVE banner on their website. TheoryOfPractice 00:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Did they end up showing it? I probably was just getting liberally deceived... ħuman 02:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple of years we went on an exotic holiday with my wife's sister and her husband who live in California. The package was organised by a US tour operator who recommended that we take out travel insurance, the cost was $450 each, for two weeks! At that time my UK world-wide annual cover was £90 so I don't think much of the US's competitive advantage in insurance. Генгис^evolving 10:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that and you'd be a measly foreigner with no right to live in Jesusland at all. Seriously, one of my Yank friends has cropped up on Arsebook saying that the healthcare thing is bad because they'll also cover (illegal) immigrants. It seems to me like "oh look, someone is dying on the street, shall we help them?" "Nah, they're not One Of Us, fuck 'em". Yeah, great way to look civilised there. But really, competition isn't there to give people low prices (this is just a side effect, the real reason is to prevent stagnation and encourage innovation - people who don't innovate and provide better service only have the option to provide cheaper service or go bust) and competition certainly won't deliver low prices when you have it in the insurance industry - it'll provide low prices to people with ZERO chance of claiming, and high prices to people with high chance of claiming. Apply this method to health insurance and BAM! you have an awful lot of people going to get fucked over in the name of business. ^{d hominem} 15:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

*kick

Stumbledupon this, and I think it has a very strong and compelling point. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ things that make you go "hm" 16:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Or edit goofy wiki's. :D But you can probably say it's worth it considering some of the alternatives. ^{d hominem} 19:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Another woo spoof...

I was talking to somebody today about my undying love for all things Zappa-related, and this song came up. I realised that it was in some small way related to what we do here, and it's Frank, so it's obviously cool. TheoryOfPractice 19:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

sometimes I stare at Wikipedia and do not comprehend it

maybe I need more sleep? I understand the concept of outing, privacy on Wikipedia, all that. But what the heck is going on here regarding this? The guy is clearly spamming, and he's posting personal details, but...the personal details are on other public sites from accounts registered back in 2007 and 2002. If she didn't make those accounts, that's a pretty long running frame. If she did make those accounts, it's kind of on her to keep that information private. And if it that's not her, then it's not an outing at all, right? I mean, maybe my logic here is bad. I've been kind of absent-minded lately.

However, none of that really blanks my brain as that the guy apparently took a screenshot of her Wikipedia contributions history, put it on imageshack, and then was apparently successful in asking imageshack to take it down. I know image hosting sites will usually yank an image at the drop of a pin, but....why does it need to be taken down at all? Megaten 04:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

We've had a similar situation here where an editor was concerned about RationalWiki revealing her real name (which she registered under) as people might learn that she is an atheist. While at the same time her real-name (allegedly) Wikipedia userpage proudly bosts that she is an atheist. Генгис^evolving 10:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

9/11 Truth

Someone at my work has become a little obsessed with 9/11 Truth and I was wondering if anyone knew of a site / video which proved all of their arguments are false (like the BBC did with the 7/7 Ripple Effect video)? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Show him this episode of South Park. It's very funny and condemns people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies as "retards."

A couple of months ago I looked up a couple of videos on Youtube of the 9/11 attacks and they were just breathtakingly unreal. To think it was conceived by the American government is an incredibly stupid thing to truly believe. SJ ^Debaser 11:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A site is probably optimistic, but there are plenty of sites out there that contribute to the overall effect. I'm thinking in particular of 911 Myths, Debunk 9/11 Myths and Gravy's Links page. The sheer volume of lunacy generated by the 9/11 Truth movement is pretty mind-blowing but it's all been debunked, often in a very clear and structured way. Worm ^{(t | c)} 14:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Have we done an AOTW on the truthers? Totnesmartin 21:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I subscribe to the "Bush allowed 9/11 to happen" theory (also believe the same thing for Pearl Harbor). Not sure how much of a retard I am for believing that--Tabris 22:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Perl IDE

I note there are a lot of people here using perl for their bots, and I wondered what IDE you use and if it supports intellisense (including for the imported modules)? I fancy trying my hand a writing a little bot to completely destroy all of RationWiki help out with menial tasks here. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I use python and gedit/kate. Syntax highlighting is all I need. -- Nx / talk 13:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Never used python. Isn't it just pseudocode indented correctly? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah :) I chose python because it seemed like most wp bots are written in python with pywikipediabot, and more importantly there's pyqt and qt-webkit that allows me to make screenshots of websites. -- Nx / talk 14:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Perl programs are usually too small to need a full blown IDE. I use vim or gedit, depending on how I'm feeling. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Vi sucks. You can't save with one press of a button. -- Nx / talk 14:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

People who can't use vi to it's abilities generally agree that it sucks. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Real programmers use ed. Educated stupid Hoover! 14:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

real programmers use butterflies. -- Nx / talk 16:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Real programmers set the constants of the universe such that it evolves to contain a disc containing the desired data. Educated stupid Hoover! 16:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

vi reflects the whole philosophy of early Unix. It's written for techies by techies and, if you find it too difficult, then that's your problem, not ours. Whilst we're on the subject the braces should line up with each other and be two spaces in for each level of indentation. K&R were wrong on that one. Flame on! Bob Soles 14:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Braces should line up, yes. AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE PART OF THE FUCKING BLOCK!!! One gripe about perl... ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Braces should die. I never liked C-style syntax. It's just a long stream of weird shapes. -- Nx / talk 16:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Coming from the who uses python. Significant whitespace?!? RUFKM? ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, because that was the right tool for the job. I've never used python before writing Capturebot2. Anyway, it's an interesting idea and it works if you indent anyway. -- Nx / talk 16:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly interesting. It's not like I ever write unindented code, but I still don't like it for some reason. Back to the "C-style syntax", I was thinking the other day about how much more symbolic perl code would be if we just had more readily available symbols. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Any sort of code completion annoys the living shit out of me. I don't even like my IDE adding the closing brace when I type the opening one. It's just not a feature I need, and gets in the way more than anything. Quite frankly, if I can set tabstops at 4 spaces, set breakpoints and preferably not have to use gdb through the command line (though if you give me the option, that'd be nice) I tend to be happy with just about anything. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Apple Mac!

My new Apple Macbook has just arrived! And now I have to go to work until 1 in the morning instead of spending the rest of the day setting it up!!! Man I'm enraged but excited!!! SJ ^Debaser 14:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a Macbook, setting it up consists of pressing the on button. ^{d hominem} 15:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Then wondering why nothing works on it.

Mac: "Hey PC, what are you doing?"

PC: "Playing a game"

Mac: "Which one?"

PC: "Any."

Mac: "Oh"

Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

First vi/emacs and now Mac/PC. Two flame wars in consecutive sections. What do you think this is, Slashdot? Bob Soles 15:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned in one of our articles somewhere, fuck vi/emacs or macs/PCs, real men just type 1s and 0s into a Turing Machine!! ^{d hominem} 15:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Bah, Turing machines don't have 1s and 0s. Surely you mean real men punch holes in tape with their teeth. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that emacs blows goats. It'd be nice to have something to agree on... ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Having been tortured with command-line only linux while programming some DFT-based ab initio calculations in a group project (at least I have the experience...), I'm inclined to wholeheartedly agree. Is vi that one that has different modes that you have to flick through. I don't get it though, you have these programs that people go on about, but in my experience, Windows Notepad does it all better and easier anyway (obviously, you can't run Notepad from a command line on linux, but still...). ^{d hominem} 16:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

vi does have modes. Did Notepad ever evolve to included syntax highlighting or auto-indent? That was the one thing that always amazed me. However, I suppose real programmers don't need syntax highlighting. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For the command line, I use nano. Notepad++ can do a lot of things, but it is the epitome of bad ui design. Kate is pretty nice and now it's available on windows too. And yeah, autoindent and syntax highlight are two features that Notepad would need to be more than just a bigger clipboard. -- Nx / talk 16:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably because Notepad isn't used for programming... well, neither is Windows really. So coders can really have their own little world of compiling and emacs vs vi and "user interface, what the hell is that?" and us normal people can just live on the fruits of their hard labour. ^{d hominem} 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program." - Linus Torvalds

Quick. Send it back now. Before the smug sets in. Get a much better Dell, and then use the change to buy yourself a little cake in congratulations on avoiding the biggest mistake in your life of surrendering to the borg. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Building on that, since this is RationalWiki, what are your rational reasons for purchasing a Mac over a PC? Clepper ^{is fallible} 00:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"... pastiche of Right-Wing hobgoblins..."

The words used by Max Blumenthal from The Daily Beast to describe the terms conservatives try to apply to President Obama (secret communist, muslim, terrorist, etc.) during his interview on NPR today.

ALSO, probably the most wonderfully turned phrase I have ever heard and something I look forward to using in my American Government course this semester. The Foxhole Atheist 17:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I always wondered what the collective term for Right-wing hobgoblins was. Totnesmartin 21:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Image thumbnail sizes

This has been bothering me for some time now: the size of thumbnail images (i.e. [[Image:whatever.jpg|thumb]]) depends on your settings. You can select values from 120px up to 300px. The default is 180px. However when you add a pixel size to the image, for example 200px, with the intent to increase it a bit, you are overriding this setting and actually making it smaller for those who have selected a value larger than 200px.

There is a way to make images scale relative to the user's preferred thumbnail size: the upright option. It's primarily intended for tall images, and it sets the width to 0.8 times the user's preferred thumbnail size. You can specify any value, even greater than 1.0 to make the image wider. Of course setting the pixel size to something larger than 300px won't make the image smaller than the user's preferred size since 300 is the max, but it is still disregarding the user's choice.

So in general, I suggest we:

• limit the usage of explicit pixel sizes and respect the user's choice
• use upright for very tall or very wide images
• use upright to resize an image relative to the preferred size when image should be larger (e.g. lead image, image with text that should be readable in main article etc.)

For examples, see this -- Nx / talk 22:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You know that vast swathes of our templates require images being just so many pixels wide, right? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he means in articles, really. As far as his first point, I totally agree and have been removing "forced" widths from thumbnails for years, unless they were really important. However, I think "upright" should be used very sparingly. ħuman 23:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ben Stien impression

So now that we are all settled in again..........anyone wanna own up to leaving the Ben Stein impression on my voicemail during the down time? Just curious. tmtoulouse 00:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained Optical Phenomenon

This concerns a bizarre optical phenomenon I witnessed when I was a teenager, about ten years ago. It was about midnight, and the moon was setting over Lake Superior; the water was fairly calm and the sky was clear. The moon's reflection on the waves made the familiar upside-down "V" shape, but the V didn't point at the moon, but 10-15 degrees to the right! It looked like this:

C

---

      /\
     /  \
    /    \

I've never heard of *anything* like this, and I think I have a pretty decent layman's understanding of optics. I could dismiss it as a dream or false memory, but my dad remembers it too. How could this be possible?

If I understand it correctly, then water reflects light in a different manner than say, glass. For example, when you put a pencil behind a glass of water, you get this:

   _
   ||
 __||__ 
 \||  /
  ||  |
  ||  |
  V   |
  |   |
  |___|

and the pencil will appear to be in a different place than it is. Perhaps this is a derivation of that phenomena? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting dino tidbit

Thought this was pretty interesting, when it comes to the dino-bird link. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 00:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm intensely bored

And so I'm here tonight, for a guest appearance. Does anything interesting or witty every get posted here? Or is this website just a frivolous perpetuation of internet memes and teenage angst? MarcusCicero 00:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)