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

RW financial update (stIcKy)

As some may remember there was a strike called at my university. The whole long protracted story of what went down is somewhat interesting and worth sharing (I think at least) once things have settled down enough that I feel "safe" in doing so. The gist of the situation is though I have lost about 35 percent of my pay this month due to the strike action. This is going to lead to two consequences for RationalWiki that I wanted to pass along:

1)Since I will barely be able to even make rent next month my solution is to run away to home for the holidays as early as possible and leach off my family for a month. This means I will be physically away from the server for close to a month. Everything has run smoothly for over a month now so I am optimistic there won't be a problem, and if there is we have more tools available than last time to try and fix it. But its something to be aware of.

2)I like to keep about $150 in RW funds in reserve to cover any emergencies. We have about $120 at the moment, however, I am going to have to tap into this to pay for the internet connection for December. Probably on the order of about $60-$70. Leaving our reserve about $100 short. So if you have not tossed a few bucks RW's way in a while it would be great if you considered it. There is no need for the funds right away, but I would like to get things back up to the $120-$150 range by January.

That's about it. tmtoulouse 00:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Bummer about the lost pay. I am in a similar position as you are at my university and (though there is no hint of a labour dispute at the moment) I would very much like to hear your thoughts on the whole shebang. I am somewhat ashamed to say that until a few moments ago I had never tossed any bucks RW's way. I've enjoyed this site for more than a year, and it's certainly worth keeping online. Thanks for all your hard work.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 02:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't afford to donate again at the moment, but get paid in a couple of weeks so should be able to throw you another £20 then. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If we wanted to contribute, how would we do so? MDB 14:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

here Bob Soles 14:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we word the little 'Donate' section on the sidebar more strongly? I suggest "Donate much needed funds to RationalWiki' or somesuch. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty, I find the donate section practically invisible. I didn't reven realize it was there till now. Which is normally good -- I wouldn't want the site to be reminiscent of PBS during pledge week -- but I was barely aware you even solicited donations. MDB 18:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added some formatting to MediaWiki:Common.css to make it stand out some more. The wording is at MediaWiki:Sidebar (only plain text works there, but it can be styled via css). Suggestions are welcome. -- Nx / talk 18:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What does PayPal charge you to receive donations? Fedhaji (Talk) 18:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a whole lot, it scales depending on the donation, a few cents on the dollar mostly. tmtoulouse 19:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Donations get solicited every now and then, usually when Trent is strapped or news something new and shiny. This is one of those times. ^theist 19:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Trent does FAR too much for this place, and if you appreciate his dump, hurl some cash his way. I've added some jaunty copy to add to the nice new loud orange panel. Suggestions welcome. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not a flashing orange banner across the top of every page, with randomly selected entreaties to pony up? ħuman 01:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, if it means Trent isn't licking dogfood out of cans. Whatever it takes. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 01:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're exaggerating a bit... have you even read what he said about the state of the RW finances up above? While I agree fully that RW shouldn't cost him any money, going into a sudden panic over the wording of the donation link is just silly. If you think it can be better, let's come up with something better at the sidebar talk page and install it. ħuman 8:37 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Exaggerating? Trent did say he may not able to pay his rent after all? Whatever. Anyway, I'm not "going into a panic", but I certainly see only benefit from rewording the currently lame call to action that is our Donations box. "Join the supporters"? If we had supporters, we wouldn't be needing to make a call out - the problem is we DON'T have supporters. The box clearly wasn't doing any work for us, as per MDB's comment above - even a long term user like him didn't even know how to donate. That's hardly a functioning system. Why not a 'Donate' bar permanently mounted above Recent Changes too? Maybe we can have some vote widget fun and vote for slogans? Can someone do that? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You fail at reading comprehension. "Since I will barely be able to even make rent next month" followed by his solution to no food money - go home for the hols. And the reason for the month's poverty is not RW it's the strike he was dragged into (and encouraged in by some of us). But I'm all for vote widgets and slogans. Chances are you'll have to figure them out yourself (hint, find one you like and copy the code) though. ħuman 04:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget folks that you can take out a RationalWiki subscription and pledge Π dollars (or multiples thereof) per month. This may not solve Trent's immediate predicament but pledging $6.28 (about the price of two pints) a month adds up to $75 a year. Half a dozen new pledgers could make a significant difference. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Is a PayPal account needed for the subscription, or is there another way of doing it? I've chucked in a donation, but would find it a lot easier if I could just set something like $10 per month.--^{Ask me about your mother} 15:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Slogans

As per Doggedpersistence's suggestion above, here's my humble suggestions for a "Give to RW" slogan:

• Don't donate to RationalWiki until you hurt. Donate to RationalWiki until Conservapedia hurts.
• Donate to RationalWiki. The mind you save may belong to a homeschooler who will grow up to cure the disease that's going to kill you.
• Donate to RationalWiki, because Andrew Schlafly's mind already is a waste.

MDB 13:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Should our logo have our name "RationalWiki" under it? (sticky)

That's the question. tmtoulouse 19:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is... We don't particularly have a logo with the name on it. It could be useful considering the idea that I've been wanting to start recently. ^theist 19:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing it will look as good as it does now, but you fuckers have a tendency of surprising me. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be the convention among wikis, and it should fit nicely. -- Nx / talk 19:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Time for a font war? ^theist 19:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

How about this one? -- Nx / talk 19:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the Wiki name should go in the logo. The proposed logo image is missing the exclamation point on "RationalWiki," but is otherwise good. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If its worth doing, its worth over doing, and also abusing random extensions. A contest I say! With submissions and voting bars and everything! tmtoulouse 19:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

With essays and debates and multiple talk pages, too! ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell came up with "Hot. Science. RationalWiki" anyway? And I'm just pondering an idea for a 3D logo that would almost be straight out of the Brass Eye opening sequence... ^theist 19:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you believe me if I said Andrew Schlafly^img? tmtoulouse 19:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

and Ed poor^img. -- Nx / talk 19:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Holy carp... ^theist 19:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we've already got a H. S. RW! texted logo on the server somewhere. I know there's one on my hard drive... ħuman 20:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that the one that Nx posted just above? Anyway, what about RW merchandise? I can't quite figure out how to make it turn a decent enough profit to fund the server, but I wouldn't mind the brain on a mug (complete with the phrase "you don't have to be rational to work here, but it helps") or t-shirt. ^theist 20:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Print on demand store? Here is a random blog post looking at options. If someone with graphic design talents wants to donate some time for to do some stuff we could run a small business on the side to cover costs. - π 10:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I also have the lemon party/tub girl version... ħuman 20:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC!!!!!) Yes, it's from User:Human/RW_logos -- Nx / talk 20:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's funny.... ħuman 21:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

My vote is that we have a big R W seared across the two brain segments in a cattle-brand style. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I made a version of the one linked above with the exclamation point added, it's here and on my logo page. ħuman 01:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

An SVG version might be good; I know there's one lying around somewhere... Stupid drug Hoover! 09:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The original was an svg, Linus has it somewhere, but it was never on the wiki. For wiki-logo purposes it isn't necessary, but it sure would be nice to have a big hi-rez svg as the basis for t-shirts, coffee mugs, and blimps. Imagine if we sponsored the Super Bowl blimp! Or one of those big "test" things. ħuman 18:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It is on the wiki. The brain is from Wikimedia Commons -- Nx / talk 18:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

File:RW_Logo_vector.svg and wp:File:Hemispheres.png -- Nx / talk 18:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, nice! ħuman 18:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a problem, I didn't realize where the brain came from. I don't want our logo under the CC-BY-SA or GFDL. tmtoulouse 18:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Any chance you could make a cool MRI scan as a basis for a new one that you could claim full copyright to? I realize anything you make at work, or using work toys, might not be copyrightable like that though... Do any of us have access to fresh brains we can photograph? ħuman 19:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This one is public domain. We could also give up the whole brain idea and go for something different, possibly an ancient Greek motif. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have got some PD MRI anat scans, let me generate a surface volume from those and see what you guys think. tmtoulouse 20:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

MRI scans

A samples of the two approaches to visualization I can do with MRI scans. The first is a rendering based on the whole volume, the second is a slice selection. They would obviously need some cleaning up/cropping to work but it is what I can do. I can also do any slice selection we want but I am thinking we should stay similar to what we have. tmtoulouse 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In terms of visuals I like that whole better, overall the both make me feel a little queezy. - π 01:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

We certainly don't need to go down this approach, just merely presenting it as an option. tmtoulouse 01:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So the deal is if we start with a PD image, and then add the brackets, we can copyright it? PS, I prefer the one on the left. But it's still weird. ħuman 03:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

ListenerX's suggestion is better than those two, and the current version, put together.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 04:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You think? I think it's a worse picture, and the low rez is kinda sad. It's a "start", of course. But those MRIs above are actually Trent's brain "thinking about RationalWiki". How much better can you get, all he has to do is get his layers piled up better! ħuman 04:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly play with the rendering of it, I can run some spatial smoothing on the brain to make it look more like the one in the logo, and other manipulations. I just don't want to devote time to it if we are not interested in going down this path. tmtoulouse 06:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's just get a good PD sulcussy image that looks like what we used way back, slap some brackets on it, and call it copyright. But if you can come up with some sick version of some MRI or whatever for us to use, I think the mob might like it. ħuman 06:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Trent, can you export a 3d model into some file format I can read with Blender? I have a brain model that looks similar enough, but I don't know what its copyright is (I think I got it off a forum thread, and it's from an MRI) -- Nx / talk 08:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I found the source of the 3d model, it's from the first tutorial for 3DSlicer. I can generate the 3d model using slicer, but I don't know what the license of the files in the tutorial is. -- Nx / talk 10:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And based on this I made a prototype logo and set it up at RationalBeta -- Nx / talk 11:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's nice, but the levels on the final 2D image will need tweaked a little, and then smoothed out as it looks a lot darker and harsher than the current one. The 3D is cool, though. Get it spinning and we can start putting out RW videos! ^theist 13:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The current logo looks a bit too smudgy IMHO. In any case, we're probably not going to use this model. -- Nx / talk 16:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to look at the logo we have now, and the one at RationalBeta. Said simply... ugh, I perfer the old one. O_o ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ thinking of what to say next 14:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? -- Nx / talk 16:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

But we still don't know the copyright status of this right? 3D rendering of brain volumes has never been something I have focused much on and there are other/better tools out there than what I have installed currently. I am heading into the lab now, going to see about getting some other tools installed and see what I can generate. I will try and get something "blender" compatible. tmtoulouse 15:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they're probably not PD, the page says "For questions about the materials on this page, please send an e-mail to Sonia Pujol, Ph.D. (spujol at bwh.harvard.edu).". This 3D Slicer tool can create a 3d polygon model out of MRIs, but I don't know exactly what files it needs. The .dcm files are not enough, it needs an NRRD file to create the model. -- Nx / talk 16:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I will give 3d Slicer a shot and see what I can do with my data. tmtoulouse 16:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So the 3d Slicer reads in the dicom images fine, and can construct 3d volume renders from it, however in order to separate out the structures you have to "label" them. Basically color in the "brain" and not the skull, and render only the labeled portions. The problem is I have never been good about "coloring within the lines." But I will keep playing. tmtoulouse 18:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspected that would be the case. How did you get the rendering on the left side of your sample pic? -- Nx / talk 18:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Generated off of Surface Mapper on an AFNI BRIK file from their tutorial. tmtoulouse 18:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I still vote for this one. It's free, it looks like a brain, and it's aesthetically pleasing (it has an organic feel to it).

The current version has copyright problems.

The right MRI is ugly, and has a bit too much of a "medical" feel to it.

The left MRI is the most aesthetically pleasing of the lot, but it doesn't look like a brain to the untrained eye.

The only real problem with the low res version is that it's low res. So it can't be scaled up to put on mugs, t-shirts or bath towels. But realistically, who cares. There are only three actual people on this site, none of whom drink coffee, wear clothing or take baths.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 21:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So I got the 3d slicer working with data from freesurfer:

This brain was generated with sample data, I am working on trying to get my data into a similar form as we speak. But we are getting closer, yes? tmtoulouse 21:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that looks pretty good. I don't have access to freesurfer, so I tried AFNI and 3dslicer. AFNI's skullstrip works nicely, but I can't generate a good enough mesh with 3dslicer. The ridges don't go deep enough, and are kind of smudged on the surface. -- Nx / talk 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I managed to create an acceptable looking brain model from the MRI images, unfortunately the source data is still unknown copyright and I couldn't find any public domain MRIs. If you send me some I can give it a try. -- Nx / talk 00:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Dicom format is fine right? Also, I am making good progress with it on my end as well but mine is taking a while to process the data. Let me pick out the best anat scan I have and send it your way. tmtoulouse 00:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

While real MRI scans are awesome, if you're having trouble with either getting them into a regular format like .OBJ or having difficulties sourcing copyright it might work okay to make one from scratch - make the rough shape in a polygon modeler and add the ridges and folds in ZBrush or Mudbox. ^theist 10:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we are making pretty good progress with my data, Nx has a version up on my user page and here is one I just finished generating:

tmtoulouse 16:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That looks pretty spot on to me. Are you planning on rendering out the final thing in Blender? ^theist 16:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably, I have never used Blender and can't install it at the lab. I will see about it when I get home tonight. 18:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

First mockup based on that brain. -- Nx / talk 03:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

3d effect [[]]s = fiddly, scales badly, messy

"RationalWiki" = great

brain = too bright, too big (current logo proportions are perfect) -- =w= 03:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are still copyright issues with these new brain images, this one appears to be a higher resolution version of the one I linked to before. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mei makes good points (see, Mei is useful). Also, the words at the top make it look unbalanced. They should be rendered as "Hot. Science." with exactly one space between them, and centred over the image.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 14:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Choice time

I think we have made some good progress, I would like to get the logo updated. I think we should just use a simple text under the image and avoid the slogans, at least for the main logo. Feel free to play around with slogan versions on your own. Here is an example of what I mean:

tmtoulouse 19:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I really like the above logo and I think witty slogans are not witty. Ace^McWicked 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Just make sure the font is free too. -- Nx / talk 19:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the slogans should not be on the logo. The above image looks good. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I like this one too. No slogans. --PsygremlinFale! 19:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty good. I like the font and the lack of slogan. ^theist 20:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I will go ahead and drop it on the site logo and see how it looks. tmtoulouse 20:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Compromise, happy with new logo as long as we don't have the slogan. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ would rather be hated for who he is than loved for who he is not 20:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I happen to like this logo quite a bit. Frummidge 20:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The font looks a bit aliased in the 125x125 pixel version. Also the skin expects a 135x135px file. -- Nx / talk 20:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer the font to be stolen. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I missed most of the discussion above about redesigning the logo completely. I like the text (although maybe it should be a little bolder?) but prefered the old version of the brain graphic. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The biggest issue with the existing brain is that we can not maintain copyright of our logo, which is really something we should do. I think the old brain was kinda smudgy and lacked details and resolution. The new brain is actually a brain, constructed from an MRI. tmtoulouse 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's too bold IMHO. I really liked the previous one -- Nx / talk 21:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, was just playing. tmtoulouse 21:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

EC-Current logo has nice shadows around the edge. Can we copy that? It makes the logo that much better. -- =w= 21:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The old logo looked more edible. Also more like a medical scan. The new one looks more like a metal sculpture. Why is copyright status suddenly an issue after two years? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

IIUC, the gist was having copyright wasn't necessary but was desirable (based on what tmt was saying). Maybe we should vote on whether we actually need it, though. -- =w= 21:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that we have been claiming copyright on our logo for 2 years when it turns out that we can't. No one tracked down the source for the original logo till recently. Turns out it is copyleft. So we either have to release our logo as CC-BY-SA or redo it with a copyrightable image. I just don't see any good coming from having our logo CC-BY-SA. Our site is growing in terms of its external prestige/prominence, we are becoming a trusted site for references certain kinds terms and ideas. I can see them in the server logs growing every month. This is a good thing, it is what we have been building towards. To have credibility and a "brand name" that people can turn to. Those elements of the site that define who we are, that serve as our "brand" should be under our control, namely our logo and our name. tmtoulouse 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not "our control" if its your decision. -- =w= 22:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes because I have such a history of dictatorial decision making on the wiki.tmtoulouse 22:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

One is enough. But hey lighten up, it is your server. :) -- =w= 22:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Two quick comments - one, the grey text should probably be black. Also, text should be slightly bolder - it washes out a bit at the "logo" size. Otherwise, excellent! ħuman 21:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Weaseloid has a point about the new brain looking too shiny. Is it possible to tone down the specular highlight? ListenerX^TalkerX 21:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In the new version just uploaded, the half with no specularity looks much better. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

a saucerful of Mei

The left (light grey) has specularity, but it is soft, the right (dark grey) has no specularity. I've added shadows too. -- Nx / talk 22:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The right half is perfect. JMO. -- =w= 22:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I can make it lighter gray btw. Hold on, new version coming in a moment -- Nx / talk 22:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(haven't seen new version yet) I like the dark grey if its a choice. -- =w= 22:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(seen it now) NX! Any chance you could upload one thats much darker? -- =w= 22:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

JMO: the one thing I like about the old logo was the less-pronounced shadows. That is all. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mei also likes the less heavy contour shadows - if that's what you meant? -- =w= 22:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the more pronounced shadows, but here you are. -- Nx / talk 22:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright discussion

Lets pull it out into its own subgroup if people really have a problem with this. My argument is simple, as our site increases in prominence and prestige we develop a "brand" associated with our content. That "brand" is our reputation, several elements of the site define that brand, our logo and our name being the most prominent. If we release our logo as CC-BY-SA we are releasing a great deal of control over our brand to the internet at large. By keeping a copyright on it we have tools needed to better protect what amounts to our global reputation. Copyrighting our logo isn't going to effect our dedication to disseminating free information, it is not making us a commercial entity. An analogy for me is our policy to rename users that sign up with nearly identical names of existing users. It is to protect the reputation and respectability of the established user. tmtoulouse 22:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to register the RationalWiki trademark? ListenerX^TalkerX 22:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It is worth considering, though that's an extra-step from what we are talking about. Copyrighting a logo is as easy as saying "this is copyright." Trademarks take filing a form and paying money. We have a level of protection on our name just from having an established entity with that name for a period of several years. Ultimately my goal would be to establish an entity that is RationalWiki above and beyond me as a person, both in terms of growth and community aspects, as well as legal protection. But baby steps. tmtoulouse 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a compelling and nice argument. But it isn't a mob. -- =w= 22:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Another point, copyrigting the logo is nothing new, we have always maintained copyright on our logo, just turns out we could not legally do so. tmtoulouse 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the question of copyrighting the logo, the purpose of a trademark (whether enforced by copyright or as a trademark) is entirely separate from the usual purpose of a copyright. It is the latter purpose that copylefts and free licenses are intended to counteract, and the former purpose that we are invoking in keeping our logo under copyright. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way of adapting the existing logo which would render it sufficiently different from the source to be regarded as ours, while still having its distinctive look? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

^ Mei votes for this. -- =w= 22:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyleft is pretty strong about derivative works. tmtoulouse 22:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

anybody want to play?

Took some mushrooms. Your move. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse / talk / contribs}

Oooh, pizza! ħuman 01:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks buddy. Wish you were here. For cereal, I'm off my fuggin rocker so have fun with it.

Qxg7# --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I fucking LOVE magic mushrooms. Love'emLove'emLove'emLove'emLove'emLove'emLove'emLove'emLove'em. Enjoy. Go ask Alice, when she's ten feet tall. TheoryOfPractice

Thanks TOP. Ate another couple grams for you.

your changes will be visible immediately.

Some changes take time to appear, others appear before the time they are expected....

can't find the tilde on my blackberry. Mop on.

Can't you just copypasta or press the magic signature button.

I'll take a threesome over mushrooms, alcohol, or any "drugs"... any day Udon 04:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You and two hot young boys in tights?

Now a threesome on mushrooms... if you can stop giggling for long enough, of course. Hope you had awesome music to go with them. --PsygremlinZungumza! 05:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nono, it was my fiancée and another woman I suggested to her. My fiancée agreed, and yea.. now I'm exhausted. Udon 21:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As Lucy hit the sky and all kinds of apple pie...? SJ ^Debaser 16:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What kind did you take? I took some "philosopher's stones" back when they were still legal in the UK, but none since. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You people make my life seem so boring, mundane and suburban. The highlight of my weekend was a community theatre production of Little Shop of Horrors. MDB 13:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Buy some acid off some of the kids hanging around outside. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt I'd have the nerve to take acid. Though if I did, the place I saw the play (Greenbelt, MD) would be a good place to find some, I'd imagine. It, along with Takoma Park, is one of most "hippie" towns in Maryland. MDB 14:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

MDB, the highlight of my weekend was finding out my ex-girlfriend has found someone new, and me spending Friday and Saturday night alone getting shitfaced and smoked out of existence - I'm a STUDENT and that was my weekend! SJ ^Debaser 18:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

@Josh: That sucks. Be strong big man, plenty more sperm-recepticles in the world and all that. @MDB: Acid isn't as bad as people make out. Anyone who tells you an acid horror story involving demons or fruit (e.g. I thought I was a banana and tried to peel myself) has never taken acid in their lives. To get that kind of trip you'd have to take an A4 sheet. The best thing is to titrate your gear; take half of your tab, wait an hour and assess how fucked you are, and then take the other half if you are still coherent. Works for me. Mainly you'll just find yourself staring at the carpet and giggling rather than screaming about dragons and the floor eating you. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

HA! Cheers Crundy. I'm OK and pretty much over her, we've been split up for nearly 6 months now anyway. I just found out via Facebook "Such-and-such is now in a relationship!" in the middle of my radio show. As we're on the topic of drugs, I just finished watching Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and man was that one weird fucking film. Pretty funny though. SJ ^Debaser 00:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Awesome film, but not to be copied. Anyway, fuck her, go storm the fresher's parties. You would not believe how up for it first year nursing students are. Getting laid at uni is like walking through a forest at night. Sooner or later you'll hit a tree. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 00:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not be copied? Why not? I have come close but never to the same degree but that was due to lack of funds as opposed to fearing for my health and sanity. Ace^McWicked 00:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeedio, that's what I've been doing! I can easily imagine Ace running around like a mad eejit, pimping fifteen year-olds and having a ciggy dangling out his mouth for every second of the film his life. SJ ^Debaser 01:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have got a three day long party to attend this weekend up on the coast. Things are bound to get weird. Ace^McWicked 01:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll be the one with a .44 Magnum and a handful of pills in an Hermes briefcase. 01:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ace, check back in with us when it's over so we know that you're alive and well, and that after a day your eyes didn't start to bleed for whatever bizarre reason. I'm going back home this Friday for a friend's party, and OH we're going out on the town and I am going to regret it the morning after. SJ ^Debaser 01:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I cut a piece of paper in half with another piece of paper

For some reason I am immensely proud of this. Stupid drug Hoover! 10:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, I wish my Sundays were as exciting as yours. --PsygremlinTal! 10:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It was actually on Friday, I just forgot to mention it. Stupid drug Hoover! 11:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

remind me never to play scissors paper stone with you. Totnesmartin 17:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well since no one asked I guess I have to: how? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Mei seconds this. Mei

The first piece of paper is money, with it you go and buy a scissors. Cut the second with the scissors. Voila! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I sawed at one with the edge of the other. Stupid drug Hoover! 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. How long did that take? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Between half an hour and an hour. Stupid drug Hoover! 17:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it may have been less; I wasn't counting. Stupid drug Hoover! 17:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty cool. I respect anyone who has the time, initiative, and skill to cut paper with paper. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding work, well done Sir! Keep it up. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Dembski's vague wackings off

He is threatening us with a law suit^img, do we ignore him or laugh? - π 02:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

We laugh. Until his lawyer figures out how to contact us, at which point we should probably check with someone who is 100% certain of the law before we keep laughing.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 02:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Both. He's an idiot, and might actually finally make us notable to WP! Quoting in full context is the utmost level of respect for sources. Would he prefer we quote-mine him? ħuman 02:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Actual as the IEEE is the copy-right holder (he signed it over when he submitted the paper) we should check he is not violating the copy-right by putting it up on his website. - π 03:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's an awesome point. Can we add that (c) thing to the article? ħuman 04:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. Although if he is violating it, doesn't that mean we are too? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ohhhhh interesting. Ace^McWicked 03:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say that we are using it for criticism of the subject material, which means we would be protected by fair use. So yes, but... - π 03:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

But what? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No buts, we are in the right here. ħuman 04:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The but was, but it is permissible in some circumstance to violate copy-right, which we are probably covered by. - π 04:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that for many journals it is understood that authors will include preprints or drafts on their websites even if the journal has the copyright. This means that Bill is *techincally* violating copyright but in a way that everyone takes for granted is acceptable (some journals even explicitly give permission. These things are complicated). Now, it likely means that the journal, not Dembski is the holder and so they would need to make the relevant legal actions. However, if this is based on an early draft it is possible that Dembski retains some copyright rights. I don't know. I'm not a lawyer and these things are complicated. However, there's almost certainly a fair use claim here given the critical commentary that makes this completely acceptable on RationalWiki's part regardless of who owns the copyright. JoshuaZ 04:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Let us see what exactly Bill decides to do, and what the situation with the copyright actually is. In the mean time I think it is safe to say that article will be getting some attention, let us make it as good as we can. tmtoulouse 05:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, Larron is gonna love that I made him put this in the mainspace. Ironically, of course, Dumbski links to the old version in the essay space. Larron, you're FAMOUS! ħuman 06:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a tempest in a teapot! BTW, the IEEE (probably) is not the copyright holder of the article in question: W. Dembski only announced that it is to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, but didn't say in which... The previous article - which I excerpted to a lesser degree - was published in an IEEE journal.

The excerpts of "The search for a search" were taken from a draft, published on R. Marks site, and linked-to by the evolutionary informatics lab. It is not longer available on these sites.

Sorry, I didn't want to be the cause of trouble, I think that there is nothing wrong with my deconstruction of his article. We could drop the uncommented section 1, though.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, nah, nah, we like trouble. Thank you! Lets hold tight for now. Make improvements if you think they will help but don't do anything yet because of the threat. tmtoulouse 07:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - I'm glad to have written the article here on RationalWiki! BTW, I tried to comment on UncommonDescent:

Dear Dr. Dembski, the easiest way to get the article taken down would be to show how embarrassingly wrong the critique is.

But alas, comments are closed now... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Also remember what we learnt from Schlafly when he tried this trick. Even if he sends a formal letter, we don't pull it down. We usual have a statutory time in which to formulate a response. - π 08:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't you have anti-SLAPP laws in canukistan? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

On WPability - it pleases my post-CP heart that we could pass Wikipedia's notability rules for a non-CP event. Totnesmartin 10:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a few lines to wp:William A. Dembski#WEASEL controversy, though I'm obviously not the best choice to do so... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted as not-noteworthy. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Yes Mr Dembski, I can assure you and your colleagues that we will remove the content as soon as possible. OK, thanks and goodbye" (leans into microphone) "Kill Them!". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The only reason he could have to request a take-down is that he's unhappy with being critiqued at all. If we did the same with, say, Richard Lenski's paper, I'm sure Lenski wouldn't have an issue (and doesn't Conservapedia have a side-by-side of that one?). So, what's the best that can happen from Demski's point of view? The original gets removed but LArron's half stays and we just link to a source and selectively quote (mine), a take down order can't remove the annotations at all so let him bark all he wants, he doesn't have much to stand on with respect to removing what he really disagrees with. Or, we can request that he does the more noble and certainly more scientific thing and actively responds rather than shouts about infringement. ^theist 13:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The number of views for the article doubled since yesterday (~840 today, 430 yesterday) , so it's a minor Streisand effect. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ames

http://acandidworld.com/2009/11/16/copyright-threats-from-creationists-nothing-new/ - π 22:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

New Scientist on Swine Flu myths

For those who might be wondering about vaccination, this NS article is interesting.--Bob^{Not Jim} 11:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The comments on that site are full of the stupid. People go nuts when you mention vaccines. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article is very good but the comments make you despair for the human race.--Bob^{Not Jim} 12:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The anti-vaccination people drive me up a wall. Smallpox has been eradicated. The only known smallpox virii exist as laboratory samples, and the scientific community debates whether those should be destroyed (what if we do need to sutdy it again vs what if it escapes/someone with evil intent gets a hold of it). Polio isn't quite that gone, but its close. And both of those occurred because of vaccinations. But yet, you get these morons running around like headless chickens, fearful of things they just don't understand. It pisses me off royally. MDB 12:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. After reading the comments I feel so much stupider. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the comments fail to disappoint from the very beginning... ^theist 13:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for sounding a bit sexist, but why are the majority / the nuttiest of the antivax comments made by women? Are women more succeptable to bullshit? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There have been one or two theories/observations to that effect but I'm not 100% sure the effect is there or significant. ^theist 13:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just speculating, but perhaps because women as less likely to have studied science than men? (This isn't to say that women can't or shouldn't study science, just that more men study science than women.) MDB 13:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the sort of reasoning that gets brought up when the question is asked. However, I'm not sure if there are actually any studies showing the prevalence of irrationality - just theories as to why it would be and a few anecdotes. So until we figure out if the effect is real (if someone knows, please let me know, this has been bugging me for ages), remember this phrase, supposedly attributed to Frederick Beiser: "Facts without theory is trivia. Theory without facts is bullshit." ^theist 14:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind the area we are in. Anti-vax woo is all about "for the children" a line of reasoning that is probably more likely to resonate with women than men. Other areas of irrationality are clearly dominated by men, for an extreme, look at tax protesters. tmtoulouse 15:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Trent. There is definitely a psychology to irrationality, and certain things appeal to certain groups. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Cover feature of this month's Wired is about Paul Offit and the Anti-Vax movement. 16:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a nice feature. I can never shake off the "unholy crap" reaction I get from seeing the reactions Offit got from the Antivax crowd though. Some of the anecdotes from the Autism One conference are absolutely unbelievable (to my unjaded eyes.) I am too easily frightened though... Frummidge 16:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov

I just read this and since it is (a) about religion/logic and (b) full of win, I figured it was worthy of putting here. See also this one, which is amusing as well. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think more Americans should read his short story "Life Without Fuel"--Thanatos 02:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Dammit Asimov! One short story pretty much explains everything in the whole world. ^theist 11:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Quick brag

Holy fuck! I just racked off my latest homebrew wine into my serving box, and I kid you not, it's fucking awesome. Absolutely incredible. Comparible to a £10 bottle of supermarket wine, and yet it cost me less than 50p a bottle. This honebeww laarky is a fduck1ng godo 21hobbe i tell ya hdjythdrunk11! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Shit, I think I might have spilt my smack supply into this wine, because the sheer smooth feeling of awesomeness should not be achieved through alcohol alone. It really is that good. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 00:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Very mashed now, and I sjhould point out tht I flushed a gram of mephedrone (4-mmc) earlier because I knew it was no good for me. being fucked on homebrew as I am I realise how much of aq good decisions that was. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 00:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you doing with a gram of mephedrone? Take it easy man.--الملعب الاسود العقل ^{Your ballroom days are over, baby} 07:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if your homebrew really is comparable with a £10 barrel-aged wine although it may well be adequate for everyday drinking. I know that I have made and tasted quite a few homebrewed wines and you can't get the complexity and roundness of flavour in small quantities fermented and condtioned only in polythene or glass. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 23:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what you do with it. I used Lalvin ICV/D47 yeast and left on secondary lees for a month. The mouth feel is excellent. Very smooth and creamy. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

6th sense

Am I a bad person for thinking that the kid's mum is seriously fuckable in that movie? I'd make her see dead people...
Wait, that didn't sound as cool as I thought. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when does thinking people are hot make you a bad person? And no, that did not sound cool at all. A little creepy actually. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

YEAAAH, I'd love to strangle her... is it bad that that's the first place I go to? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Fuck's sake, editing when pissed on homebrew is a massive massive chore. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't either "good" or "bad," it depends if you are into that sort of thing. BTW, what kind of wine do you make? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This, but with chopped and boiled dried apricots and lalvin D47 yeast, left on the (non-gross) lees for a few weeks. Fucking incredible. Fuck, I forgot how awesome this movie is. Now I'm scared I'm going to have stay up all night watching it with a gallon of wine in the fridge. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You make it sound like a bad thing. I wish that's how I could waste an evening. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Stuttering Stanley, Stuttering Stanley, Stuttering Stanley, Stuttering Stanley, STUTTERING STANLEY!!!!!" Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn it, now I really want to watch that again. BTW, have you ever seen this? Bruce Willis's best film IMHO. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That movie is also full of win, however, it was massively spoilt for me, having had to view it at the cinema on release with a group of school friends, including a German fucknut who I had to sit next to, who insisted on asking me what was going on every two minutes., Visualise the movie, then imagine having to explain it every two minutes. You dig, blood? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a damn shame. Although I recommend seeing it again if possible, it was greatly improved the second time. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Seen it many times, and loving it. As an aside, that was the first movie that let me know that Brad Pitt is one of my most favorite actors ever, along with Johnny Depp. Two absolute masters of delving into the very soul of the person you are portraying. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 00:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Fight Club. 'nuff said. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 00:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

'Nuff said is right. That movie will never, ever, ever stop being awesome. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I think we're breaking the first two rules. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 00:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Shit, you're right. Now Ace Tyler will hunt us down and beat us up. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(UI) FUCK YEAAAH!! Just got to the "I see dead people" scene. Much awesomeness. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 00:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I may have to go watch it on Youtube just for that part. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No no, doovde is the way to go. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 00:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, I love this moment so much I want to have sex with it, and have lots of little moments (which would be 6th sense and alcohol related) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 00:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, did you ever see the "Spaced" piss-take of 6th sense? Awesomeness. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 00:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You lucky bastard, you sound like you are floating on air right now. Just make sure you can remember this bliss tomorrow morning. And yeah, I've seen that. Awesomeness is right. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I honestly can't recommend this wine recipe enough. Absoltely incredible. Seriously, give it a try. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 00:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. My dad makes some kind of dry red wine in his garage, so I'm no stranger to homebrew. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Poisoned small girl funeral scene) Can I just point out that if it wasn't for woo-merchants and bullshit-peddlars the world over, we wouldn't have severe win movies like this? Viva la bollocks!! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 00:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hell yeah! Life would be boring without bullshit. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(UI) Ohshitohshitohshit, gonna cry. It's the car scene. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 00:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

2012

To celebrate the release of the movie, I present you all with this. Enjoy! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The odd thing about that article was that even though it called out conspiracy theorists on some of their bullshit, it wasn't really a total refutation of 2012 theories, and it did not rebut all of the pseudoscienctific claims that it brought up. All I could think while reading it was "teach the controversy." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait and see, I guess. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 00:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's like death: You don't know for sure whether there is life after death or not, but sooner or later you will know. So why worry about it? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Gold Standard Video

It's surprisingly intelligent sounding, please tell me if this video is reasonable at all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtF_zbI5j7M --Mustex 01:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really, printing money is largely a figure of speech. The Government borrows money in the form of bonds, essentially taking the money out against future taxation. This increases interests rates, as they have to pay the money back with interest, and devalues money - what we call inflation. He is right only in a figurative sense. I remember reading somewhere once that if everyone went to the bank and asked for their money we would only have enough legal tender to cover about 1/4 to 1/3 of it any way. Money is extremely fictitious these days. When was the last time you were actual paid your wages other than by electronic transfer? Money is actual the measure of the perceived value of a persons time. - π 04:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's funny, really. Most of the "money" that passes through my "hands" never exists as any form of legal tender that I know of. Checks and EFTs handle most of the work. ħuman 20:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

CHEQUES!!!! Stupid drug Hoover! 21:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not for us 'Merkins. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that while checks pretty much represent some "money" that must already exist (or they'll bounce...), EFTs can be purely fictional - essentially privately printed money. Hmm, wait, no that's not really true. Customer gets credit card, bank is "creating" the potential for money by offering a loan. Customer uses it to buy parts from me, when I charge their card the bank pays me with "real" money, which if they didn't have on hand, they borrow, ultimately from the money printers. So I guess the private sector can't run "too far" ahead of the government agencies in "creating money". The real art for the Govt is to only create as much new money as represented by wealth creation in the economy, with perhaps a slight overspill (at the cost of "some" inflation) to make sure future growth is not held back. The wealth is created just as gold is mined - by people putting the value of their time into the economy, with the result being worth more than their time. Since we need a way to exchange the "more" part, we need an increasing money supply. Oh, and, yeah, the "gold standard" would strangle an economy by limiting growth to how much gold can be mined. ħuman 21:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, much of this has been thought of all ready, and by a Canadian no less. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

For UK RationalWikians

For those interested in politics and rational scepticism (whatever that is) some guy left a post in the forums that may interest you. - π 12:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Rational skepticism is basically rationalism. It differs from philosophical skepticism in that it only questions non-falsifiable claims. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Procrastination

Anyone have any tips for beating this? I'm a uni student and my procrastinating tendency, combined with a high workload, is getting pretty annoying. Drinking vodka while working only helps a little bit. EddyP 21:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say this but my worst source of procrastination is RW. I don't have a solution to your problem, though, as I can barely solve my own. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You could try to develop some sort of power word that you habitually repeat in order to foster motivation. Something like if-i-keep-dicking-around-I'll-become-a-loser-and-a-alcoholic should work. Perhaps some creative avoidance? Do some chores. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 21:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I was a procrastinator at university until I saw my grades drop to the point that I couldn't get into the School of Pharmacy, and my procrastination stopped immediately. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 21:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I was pretty bad at uni too. The only thing I can suggest is to tell yourself that doing your work as soon as it's been assigned to you will allow you to reward yourself with a good piss-up afterwards. Do this once and the sense of relief should be enough to convince you to get your work out of the way quickly in the future. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewards are good. Also, it's a good idea to set your own deadlines - obviously in advance of the real deadlines. Milestones also useful, particularly in larger assignments. It helps you keep track of your progress, and you get a decent feeling of achievement as you reach your milestones. You might want to have someone else checking in on your progress. I do this once a week with my projects and it generally keeps me on track. --^{Ask me about your mother} 18:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Meet "A Conservapedian" Live this Wednesday...

Apparently Andy has broken from his usual M.O. and announced^img one of his public speaking appearances while there's still time to attend. Here is the Facebook invitation for anyone who's able to make it to the Rutger's campus tomorrow evening (11/18) at 8:00 PM. It'll be interesting to see if Ed Poor or any of the other NY/NJ acolytes show up as well. --SpinyNorman 22:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be on the livingston campus and will be getting out at 7:30, would anyone mind if I write an investigative piece on it? Greepigfoot--If you want to experience the medieval rituals of faith, the candle light, the incense, music, important-sounding dead languages, nobody does it better than the Catholics 00:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Video or a mp3 would be nice.--Thanatos 01:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Or audio. Yes, please take notes- I wish I could go. Hopefully somebody will ask Andy if he believes that Obama is using mind control techniques to pass health care reform, seeing as how the AAPS, in their fake journal, accused Obama of doing the same to get elected [1]. Corry 03:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I would die to see Andy looking over his shoulders waiting for someone to "block" a real live person arguing with him... I so hope Rutgers posts video of this event. ħuman 04:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It could well be like the handful of times Rush Limbaugh has ventured into a forum where he's not in complete control and dealing with a sympathetic audience. He will make a complete ass off himself.

For instance,

* When Pat Sajak had a late night talk show on CBS, Limbaugh guest hosted for him for a week or so. Some people opposed to Limbaugh (gay activists from ACT-UP, I think) managed to get into the audience one night, with the express intent of disrupting things. It got so bad they cleared the entire audience.

* Limbaugh once appeared as a guest on David Letterman's show. Letterman asked him, point blank, "does it ever occur to you that you're nothing more than a ball of hot gas?" Limbaugh was speechless.

Just like any bully, when people like Schlafly are confronted and they can't control the situation, they lose quickly and thoroughly. MDB 18:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is obviously why he feels king of the castle when he can block people and very rarely do any of his acolytes come over here for any real discussion, instead preferring just to shout and moan if they do. ^theist 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Magnetic water treatment - woo?

Since we're now in the business of debunking consumer products sold by footpads and bloodsucking insects, I'm wondering about this one - http://www.sophtecwatercond.com/ It claims to treat hard water using special magnets at $389 you clamp onto your incoming pipes. "This amazing magnetic effect super-cleans the interior of water pipes, reducing the extensive damage to these surfaces caused by build-up of lime scale. By changing the physical characteristics of water, hard water will perform like soft water." Is anyone here familiar with the science around this and whether there is anything to it? It sounds like rank woo to me. But if not, it's a lot cheaper than a conventional water treatment system. Here's another company selling something similar, and they even have a science page: http://www.scalefighter.com/ And this "electronic water conditioner" that appears to possibly just be an electromagnet: http://www.waterking.co.uk/domestic_home.htm Secret Squirrel 23:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, first, scalefighter can't even spell "TARTER". Second, yeah, I think it's complete woo. What exactly is the magnet going to do to the calcium/magnesium, etc.? I have a magnetizer and raw ceramic magnets so I could experiment, but... I have virtually 0 ppm soft water (just a little iron and sulfur, if I can trust my senses). ħuman 00:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly the Scalefighter website has a "science" page that cites what appear to be real journals, with claims a magnetic water treatment alters calcite to aragonite. Assuming this is valid in the first place, is argonite less likely to cause scaling and buildup than calcite? They're both CaCO3. Then there are too many other variables: what sort of magnetic fields were used in these studies and how do they compare to magnets you clamp on your pipes? What if the stuff clogging my pipes isn't calcite to begin with? Then of course they cite studies but one would have to read the whole thing to draw any conclusions from them or even whether the studies were conducted properly; an abstract doesn't cut it. I agree, still sounds like woo. Secret Squirrel 01:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The same can be said of Purity Products' webshite giving so-called "scientifically proven" testimonials without citation. It's typical woo-meister mumbojumbo. Conservative Punk 01:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I fixed ur link. - human

Well yeah, that and anyone can put four citations to scientific journals to make their product "look" scientifically based, even if the studies don't really have anything to do with what they're selling. It's having them there that counts. Most consumers are just going to skim it, see "magnetic" and "water" and not look further. I checked and they do appear to be real journals, but I have no idea if they're peer reviewed. Something for future research. Secret Squirrel 01:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the papers theorizes that the magnet does something to silica causing it to outcompete the reformation of solid CaCO3, and I guess it forms a goo that flushes out? Not sure I want to drink that. Not even sure what sand is even doing in a potable water supply? How much Si is in "typical" hard water? ħuman 01:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There should be very little of either silicon or silica (not the same), as in single milligrams per liter. Methods for measuring water hardness almost always look at calcium, magnesium, calcium carbonate, or calcium sulfate concentrations, which seem to be more soluble in water and harder to remove. Water is a polar molecule, so magnetic fields can exert forces on it, but putting a magnet around the pipe results in a field running along the pipe that doesn't change the flow in any significant way. It isn't going to change the flow or behavior of the ions or other dissolved stuff, either. OneForLogic 08:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiSnail iPhone/iPod app

WikiSnail is an iPhone app that should allow me to read RW on my iPod. Anyone try it before? Sterile jellybean 02:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's just a reader? The browser experience on iPod touch and iPhones is great to me. What more do you want than the full interface including your monobook? 02:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to click on "Recent Changes" etc. Editing is awkward, too, I think. You certainly can do everything on RW on an iPod normally; it's just the interface isn't the best for the small screen. Sterile jellybean 02:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

How does the mobile version of Wikipedia work? I find that much better than the default interface on the iPod. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

crap!

so i just managed to slice my lip open while shaving and 15 mins later i'm still sitting with a towel pressed against it trying to get the bleeding to stop. not one of my brighter moments. --PsygremlinSiarad! 12:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Shame dude, I hate when that happens. I don't think I've managed to cut my actual lip before though... SJ ^Debaser 12:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I hate to break it to you, but you are going to have to put a band-aid on it and walk around looking stupid for a while. After you do that you can find award names for me. - π 12:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

$\pi$'s lying, he loves that he's broken that news to you. It's how he gets his kicks, the sick bastard. SJ ^Debaser 12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I must confess, I do. I like the thought of you sitting there with a band-aid on your mouth, searching Conservapedia for pictures for me. - π 12:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I did indeed go the band aid route... and then had to go shopping. *sigh* Lemme know what pics you're looking for and I'll have a scrounge for you. --PsygremlinZungumza! 15:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Capturebot space saving proposal?

Know ye that I know fuck all about computers. Now, about my idea: I seem to recall that RW was having problems over the huge amount of CP screencaps taken for use in WIGO. While the screencaps are really useful in case something is oversighted, some of them aren't necessary; the CP sysops can't delete the block log (AFAIK) but capturebot still takes a picture of the log when someone links to it. Similarly for deletions. Also for posts by Andy; I can't see any admin oversighting them and living to tell the tale. Could the bot be programmed to not take pictures of edits filling the above criteria, and would this be desirable? EddyP 13:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"I used to skip certain links to log files or anchored talk pages but I think I removed those restrictions once we got 300gigs of space" -- Nx / talk 13:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote

I'm writing a paper at uni and found this quote in the book "The Rise and Fall of Phil Spector" (He was a record producer.)

“”The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one insists on trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

—George Bernard Shaw

The first man this made me think of was Andrew Schlafly. SJ ^Debaser 14:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a great quote. I'm going to write that down. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Except in this case the unreasonable man doesn't want progress - he thinks everything has been going downhill for the last 6,000 years. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 14:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

All Andy controls is Conservapedia, and he is under the illusion that that is progressing - which is arguable, as it has gained more attention in the last year. Although the actual efficiency of his editors? No progress obviously, they chase away the worthwhile ones. SJ ^Debaser 14:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy isn't trying to adapt the world to himself. He's just adapted a virtual one instead. EddyP 15:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I totally just Facebooked that. No, I'm not kidding, I really did. I have a lot of Christian friends and I enjoy pissing them off." SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 21:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I Got Mine.

So Ray Comfort's people were on campus today. got my copy of the new edition of OofS. Sadly, the clone that was there was not at all interested in discussing the project. Still, lookin' forward to reading it. TheoryOfPractice 18:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have seen enough of this heresy online to never need a copy myself. Ace^McWicked 19:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

ToP: Sounds like you just volunteered yourself to write a commentary :) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A commentary on a commentary? Have we learned nothing from the recursive black whole that is rationalwikiwikiwiki? tmtoulouse 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Or can you just scan it so we can all have fun tearing it apart? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much a commentary than an introduction that only really consists a rehash of Ray's tired, old Hitlerum and a part-plagerised biography. So, put that way, we hardly even need to bother reviewing it... but for the sake of completeness it's possibly worth examining one or two points in detail for the Origin 2009 article. ^theist 21:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)