freenode #wikipedia

2008-01-16 20:13 < AzaTht> kim_bruning: a supplement is just a supplement
2008-01-16 20:13 < quanticle> bogdan: Internet drama seems to amplify real life drma exponentially
2008-01-16 20:13 < quanticle> *drama
2008-01-16 20:13 < kim_bruning> Tony_Sidaway, no, explain?
2008-01-16 20:13 < Tony_Sidaway> Well that's what thoughts are like in my brain. I think one just flitted in.
2008-01-16 20:13 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, A supplement is a supplement
2008-01-16 20:13 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, leave out the word just
2008-01-16 20:13 < gwern> Tony_Sidaway: beowulf is proof anon delivers
2008-01-16 20:13 < bogdan> quanticle: I still miss her :-(
2008-01-16 20:14 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, but actually a supplement is just a tag I put on pages, to shut up people who think that it matters ;-)
2008-01-16 20:14 < AzaTht> kim_bruning: a supplement doesn't bear any more weight than an handbook
2008-01-16 20:14 < Tony_Sidaway> gwern: yeah but his usenet period was a low point.
2008-01-16 20:14 < AzaTht> kim_bruning: then it's wrongfully of your
2008-01-16 20:14 < AzaTht> s
2008-01-16 20:14 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, a policy, guideline, essay, and supplement all bear equal weight, they all represent consensus
2008-01-16 20:14 < quanticle> bogdan: You'll get over it. Was the break clean or messy?
2008-01-16 20:14 < AzaTht> kim_bruning: not really
2008-01-16 20:14 < Messedrocker> bogdan, be happy you got ass to begin with
2008-01-16 20:15 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, they are classified in different ways, to give people some idea of what to read first
2008-01-16 20:15 < gwern> Tony_Sidaway: his performance art in that period, such as the Meow wars, has always been underappreciated imo
2008-01-16 20:15 < bogdan> MessedRawker: who said I got? :P
2008-01-16 20:15 < NotACow> mmm
2008-01-16 20:15 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, Well, all I can say is, make sure you never take me to arbcom then ;-)
2008-01-16 20:15 < NotACow> lebkuchen!
2008-01-16 20:15 < AzaTht> kim_bruning: an essay must not reflect consensus
2008-01-16 20:15 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, an essay MUST reflect consensus
2008-01-16 20:15 < AzaTht> no
2008-01-16 20:15 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, sorry, we're living in different universes
2008-01-16 20:15 < Messedrocker> no
2008-01-16 20:15 < quanticle> gwern: Don't forget the art of the desu
2008-01-16 20:15 < Messedrocker> an essay reflects personal opinion
2008-01-16 20:15 < Messedrocker> policies and guidelines reflect consensus
2008-01-16 20:16 < kim_bruning> essays also reflect consensus
2008-01-16 20:16 < kim_bruning> those that don't belong in userspace
2008-01-16 20:16 < kim_bruning> userspace reflects personal opinion
2008-01-16 20:16 < kim_bruning> what else is it for?
2008-01-16 20:16 < gwern> quanticle: a low primitive populist art
2008-01-16 20:16 < bogdan> quanticle: http://mcworld.org/imagini/wikicontr.png -- look: the effect of being in love on my en.wiki contributions! :P
2008-01-16 20:16 < kim_bruning> to set up wiki-facebook?
2008-01-16 20:16 < NotACow> my opinion defines consensus
2008-01-16 20:16 < Tony_Sidaway> Oh I dunno. I think Process is Important is fine as an essay, but I wouldn't run an encyclopedia like that.
2008-01-16 20:16 < bogdan> we should do something against wikipedians falling in love: they won't edit wikipedia that much :P
2008-01-16 20:17 < kim_bruning> Tony_Sidaway, it's a partial consensus (many people agree with it)
2008-01-16 20:17 < NotACow> bogdan: it's already prohibited for wikipedians to have relationships outside of wikipedia anyway
2008-01-16 20:17 < quanticle> bogdan: Yeah, like give them bad relationship advice
2008-01-16 20:17 < kim_bruning> I will grant that essays reflect only partial consensus
2008-01-16 20:17 < Tony_Sidaway> kim_bruning: yes, but they're wrong so it doesn't count :p
2008-01-16 20:17 < bogdan> NotACow: my gf is reading my contributions.
2008-01-16 20:17 < kim_bruning> of some segment of the community, rather than all...
2008-01-16 20:18 < kim_bruning> Tony_Sidaway, true
2008-01-16 20:18 < AzaTht> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Newbie_tests
2008-01-16 20:18 < kim_bruning> Tony_Sidaway, should we move the essay to userspace then?
2008-01-16 20:18 < Messedrocker> few people in my real life know that i edit wikipedia, much less my username
2008-01-16 20:18 < AzaTht> so that essay has consensus?
2008-01-16 20:18 < NotACow> bogdan: MEATPUPPET
2008-01-16 20:18 < bogdan> NotACow: yeah, that means that I'm trying not to bit the newcomers :P
2008-01-16 20:18 < NotACow> bogdan: how boring
2008-01-16 20:18 < Tony_Sidaway> I am of the opinion that there is a large but not immense subset of any community that determines its policies.
2008-01-16 20:18 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, it describes how wikipedia works
2008-01-16 20:18 < bogdan> NotACow: what's boring? :P
2008-01-16 20:18 < AzaTht> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_climbing_the_Reichstag_dressed_as_Spider-Man
2008-01-16 20:18 < AzaTht> that is also an essay
2008-01-16 20:19 < NotACow> bogdan: not biting
2008-01-16 20:19 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, ayup
2008-01-16 20:19 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, some essays contain things like humor, though they often also have a grain of truth
2008-01-16 20:19 < Tony_Sidaway> They determine policies despite misgivings that may be expressed by the rest of the community, as a compromise (and that's what consensus in a large group is)
2008-01-16 20:19 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, some essays have a lot of truth, wrapped in humor to make it more palatable
2008-01-16 20:19 < bogdan> NotACow: usually, cows don't bite.
2008-01-16 20:20 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, some essays -if you do not follow their advice- will get you banned
2008-01-16 20:20 < Tony_Sidaway> In other words, consensus is what you can get away with and policy is what works.
2008-01-16 20:20 < quanticle> bogdan: This should be relevant: http://www.xkcd.org/306/
2008-01-16 20:20 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, basically wikipedia guidance pages are strange
2008-01-16 20:20 < kim_bruning> Tony_Sidaway, what works to get away with? :-P
2008-01-16 20:20 < AzaTht> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert%2C_block%2C_ignore
2008-01-16 20:20 < bogdan> quanticle: hahaha, yeah :P
2008-01-16 20:21 < quanticle> bogdan: We need to get you one of those. Your wiki-productivity will skyrocket.
2008-01-16 20:21 < bogdan> quanticle: tough luck, I found a girlfriend already...
2008-01-16 20:21 < quanticle> Also, Comcrap's DNS is really slow today...
2008-01-16 20:22 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, yes?
2008-01-16 20:22 < Tony_Sidaway> kim_bruning: yes, what's done that isn't undone.
2008-01-16 20:22 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, I think that describes the different ideas well?
2008-01-16 20:22 < AzaTht> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Transclusion_costs_and_benefits
2008-01-16 20:24 < AzaTht> perhaps you should consult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POLICY :)
2008-01-16 20:24 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, what is your point
2008-01-16 20:24 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, why don't you look at page history for that page?
2008-01-16 20:25 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, some rather dangerous preconceptions have snuck in, and there's a bunch of editors removing them one by one
2008-01-16 20:25 < AzaTht> kim_bruning: was just joking :)
2008-01-16 20:25 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, so I am now telling you about some of those issues
2008-01-16 20:25 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, some of these issues have not yet been discussed very well on wiki
2008-01-16 20:26 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, so linking to wikipedia pages is unlikely to be a good reply ;-)
2008-01-16 20:26 < kim_bruning> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Some_pragmatic_concessions
2008-01-16 20:26 < kim_bruning> here's something I added today for instance ^^;;
2008-01-16 20:32 < quanticle> who made this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Consensus_new_and_old.svg?
2008-01-16 20:33 < kim_bruning> see the talk page on consensus, why?
2008-01-16 20:33 < kim_bruning> it's on the page itself
2008-01-16 20:33 < kim_bruning> Author: User:Omegatron
2008-01-16 20:33 < kim_bruning> quanticle, why?
2008-01-16 20:34 < quanticle> Its quite nice...
2008-01-16 20:34 < kim_bruning> :-)
2008-01-16 20:34 < quanticle> Also, its hopeless idealism is amusing
2008-01-16 20:34 * kim_bruning whackes quanticle over the head
2008-01-16 20:34 < kim_bruning> most wiki-editing actually does work that way
2008-01-16 20:35 < kim_bruning> oddly enough!
2008-01-16 20:35 < kim_bruning> not everything turns into huge edit wars
2008-01-16 20:35 < kim_bruning> there's a bunch of pages that make more heat than light
2008-01-16 20:35 < kim_bruning> I guess about 2-3000 by now?
2008-01-16 20:35 < kim_bruning> but we have 2M pages that seem to work fine
2008-01-16 20:35 < kim_bruning> :-)
2008-01-16 20:36 < AzaTht> I don't link that image
2008-01-16 20:36 < AzaTht> especially with the "do you agree with the revert"?
2008-01-16 20:36 < kim_bruning> don't link, or don't like?
2008-01-16 20:37 < AzaTht> second :)
2008-01-16 20:37 < kim_bruning> why not?
2008-01-16 20:37 * kim_bruning listens
2008-01-16 20:37 < AzaTht> it's like saying "do you agree that you were pretty stupid"
2008-01-16 20:38 < kim_bruning> how would you improve it?
2008-01-16 20:39 < kim_bruning> (and how is it like saying "do you agree that you were pretty stupid"?)
2008-01-16 20:39 * kim_bruning listens
2008-01-16 20:39 < AzaTht> also, it assumes that all edits on the article is about the original addition
2008-01-16 20:39 < kim_bruning> it doesn't
2008-01-16 20:40 < AzaTht> "was the article edited further"?
2008-01-16 20:40 < kim_bruning> yes
2008-01-16 20:40 < kim_bruning> past the original addition
2008-01-16 20:40 < AzaTht> "do you agree with the change"
2008-01-16 20:40 < kim_bruning> yes
2008-01-16 20:40 < kim_bruning> change to the page
2008-01-16 20:40 < kim_bruning> each box is about the full article
2008-01-16 20:40 < kim_bruning> if you interpret it some other way , it doesn't make sense, probably
2008-01-16 20:40 < AzaTht> the new consensus would then reflect the second edit
2008-01-16 20:41 < AzaTht> and would perhaps have nothing to do with the original edit
2008-01-16 20:41 < kim_bruning> it would reflect the totality of all the edits made
2008-01-16 20:41 < kim_bruning> if the 2nd edit happened to alter the first edit, yes
2008-01-16 20:41 < AzaTht> yea, then it does
2008-01-16 20:41 < kim_bruning> so that's correct
2008-01-16 20:41 < kim_bruning> right?
2008-01-16 20:42 < AzaTht> perhaps chang it to "Was the edit an alteration of the edit or an revert"
2008-01-16 20:42 < AzaTht> and change the "Do you agree with the revert" to "Do you comply with the revert"
2008-01-16 20:43 < kim_bruning> COMPLY?
2008-01-16 20:43 < kim_bruning> no, that would assume that all edits on the article is about the original addition
2008-01-16 20:43 < kim_bruning> I think we agreed that that was not the intent
2008-01-16 20:43 < kim_bruning> also, define comply?
2008-01-16 20:44 < AzaTht> "Do you have anything against the revert"?
2008-01-16 20:44 < quanticle> AzaTht: That's "do you agree with the revert".
2008-01-16 20:44 < quanticle> AzaTht: If you have something against the revert, you don't agree...
2008-01-16 20:44 < AzaTht> quanticle: how often would you agree when someone reverts you?
2008-01-16 20:45 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, not often, but it is a contingency
2008-01-16 20:45 * kim_bruning thinks like a programmer ;-)
2008-01-16 20:45 < AzaTht> kim_bruning: hmm
2008-01-16 20:45 < AzaTht> hehe
2008-01-16 20:45 < quanticle> AzaTht: Hmmm... Not often, but arguably, the work you're doing shouldn't be reverted. Reverts should be to protect agains inaccuracy or vandalism...
2008-01-16 20:46 < quanticle> If something that I wrote is inaccurate, then I would agree with the revert
2008-01-16 20:46 < AzaTht> "Do you agree with the revert (not likely, but for consistency)"
2008-01-16 20:46 < AzaTht> "Do you agree that your change was inaccurate"
2008-01-16 20:47 < kim_bruning> No, why would you agree that your change was inaccurate?
2008-01-16 20:47 < kim_bruning> why is that important?
2008-01-16 20:47 < kim_bruning> how the heck can you ascertain why the person reverted you?
2008-01-16 20:47 < AzaTht> kim_bruning: when someone reverts you
2008-01-16 20:47 < kim_bruning> why would you assume that they are correct?
2008-01-16 20:47 < AzaTht> thats a good question
2008-01-16 20:48 * kim_bruning found 4 issues with the proposed wording in about 10 seconds :-)
2008-01-16 20:48 < kim_bruning> ^^;;
2008-01-16 20:48 < quanticle> kim_bruning: Facts can and do change. If the person is able to back their view up with citations on the talk page, I might be convinced...
2008-01-16 20:48 < kim_bruning> quanticle, exactly! :-)
2008-01-16 20:48 < AzaTht> kim_bruning: ok, but on an other point
2008-01-16 20:48 < kim_bruning> so hence the step in the flowchart... take it to talk
2008-01-16 20:48 < AzaTht> the non-revert/disagree loop can be described as edit war
2008-01-16 20:48 < kim_bruning> you can then discover why you were reverted, and etc
2008-01-16 20:49 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, it can?
2008-01-16 20:49 < AzaTht> if there is never an real "revert" it will never go to the talk page
2008-01-16 20:49 < kim_bruning> that's not on any description of edit-warring
2008-01-16 20:49 < AzaTht> could*
2008-01-16 20:49 < AzaTht> could become*
2008-01-16 20:49 < kim_bruning> define a revert as any repetition of moves
2008-01-16 20:49 < kim_bruning> as revert in fact is described
2008-01-16 20:50 < kim_bruning> and define an edit war a situation in which reverts occur multiple times
2008-01-16 20:50 < kim_bruning> then that particular situation is not an edit war
2008-01-16 20:50 < AzaTht> hmm
2008-01-16 20:50 * Mike_H pets kim_bruning
2008-01-16 20:50 * quanticle wonders if we can model Wikipedia edit wars in graph-theory terms...
2008-01-16 20:50 < kim_bruning> define wiki-editing as a situation where multiple people make incremental improvements to a page
2008-01-16 20:50 < kim_bruning> then that particular loop is called wiki-editing
2008-01-16 20:51 < kim_bruning> and is specifically mandated by foundation issue #3
2008-01-16 20:51 < Lunaway> Actually, it came to mind that rollback might make edit wars far *less* dramatic -- no more heckling over "that third edit wasn't technically a revert"
2008-01-16 20:51 < kim_bruning> Lunaway, ;-)
2008-01-16 20:51 < Lunaway> No more cat-calls in edit summaries
2008-01-16 20:51 * kim_bruning pets Mike_H
2008-01-16 20:52 < Mike_H> purrrrr
2008-01-16 20:52 < bumm13> hiya Mike_H
2008-01-16 20:52 < kim_bruning> that particular small loop is the ideal case
2008-01-16 20:52 < NotACow> narf!
2008-01-16 20:53 < kim_bruning> while the larger loop is the case when there are problem situations
2008-01-16 20:53 < NotACow> loopy loopy doo
2008-01-16 20:53 < NotACow> BAN ALL EDITORS
2008-01-16 20:54 < quanticle> Lunaway: That only works if the use of rollback is mandated, thoug.
2008-01-16 20:54 < AzaTht> kim_bruning: but at least I think you should declare better that the change was related
2008-01-16 20:54 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, the change is not related
2008-01-16 20:54 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, should I declare better that the change is not related?
2008-01-16 20:54 < Lunaway> quanticle: True
2008-01-16 20:54 < AzaTht> kim_bruning: uh?
2008-01-16 20:54 < NotACow> POWER BABY
2008-01-16 20:54 < kim_bruning> or rather, the change may or may not be related. it is irrelevant
2008-01-16 20:54 < AzaTht> the change to the original alteration
2008-01-16 20:55 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, do we need to make a special case for a change to an original alteration?
2008-01-16 20:55 < AzaTht> if the change wasn't related to the original alteration made by you, you should go back to the wait stage
2008-01-16 20:56 < AzaTht> hmm, you should allways go back to the wait stage
2008-01-16 20:56 < AzaTht> you can never really get to the "consensus" stage
2008-01-16 20:56 < kim_bruning> and therin lies the insight :-)
2008-01-16 20:57 < kim_bruning> we just assume that we have consensus, but we might well just be stuck in the wait step
2008-01-16 20:57 < AzaTht> kim_bruning: the only time you would get to consensus, is if you agree with the revert
2008-01-16 20:58 < AzaTht> and if the article was never ever more edited
2008-01-16 20:58 < kim_bruning> that's the only time you can be certain :-)
2008-01-16 20:58 < AzaTht> yea
2008-01-16 20:58 < kim_bruning> for practical purposes, we can define wait as 24 hours
2008-01-16 20:59 < kim_bruning> but you can pick some other arbitrary time
2008-01-16 20:59 < AzaTht> so the only time there can have been earlier consensus, is if all earlier edits have been reverted, and everyone has agreed with the reverts
2008-01-16 20:59 < AzaTht> :)
2008-01-16 20:59 < kim_bruning> no
2008-01-16 20:59 < AzaTht> or if the article has never been edited :)
2008-01-16 20:59 < kim_bruning> you defined wait as an infinite wait
2008-01-16 20:59 < kim_bruning> while I just had it as unspecified
2008-01-16 21:00 < kim_bruning> you can specify it
2008-01-16 21:00 < AzaTht> hehe
2008-01-16 21:01 < quanticle> AzaTht: But if the article has never been edited, it doesn't exist...
2008-01-16 21:02 < kim_bruning> quanticle, therefore, no one can disagree with it, and we have consensus ;-)
2008-01-16 21:03 < kim_bruning> or at very least a state of harmony
2008-01-16 21:03 < kim_bruning> hmm
2008-01-16 21:03 < kim_bruning> "in the beginning, god created heaven and earth. This has widely been seen as a bad idea, and has made several people very angry"
2008-01-16 21:05 * bumm13 sits on o_O__O
2008-01-16 21:06 < kim_bruning> phew
2008-01-16 21:06 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, does that cover all objections? :-)
2008-01-16 21:07 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, also, sowwy about reverting you earlier. :-/
2008-01-16 21:09 * quanticle reads up on [[E-Prime]]
2008-01-16 21:10 < quanticle> Interesting concept - get rid of "to be", and eliminate ambiguity...
2008-01-16 21:10 < AzaTht> kim_bruning: no problem
2008-01-16 21:12 < AzaTht> kim_bruning: what covers all "objections"?
2008-01-16 21:13 * Demi reads up on E. Pleb Nista
2008-01-16 21:13 < quanticle> AzaTht: Ok, now we're getting into ontology...
2008-01-16 21:13 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, our conversation. :-)
2008-01-16 21:14 < AzaTht> haha
2008-01-16 21:14 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, Note that that particular flowchart has been rather heavily checked on wikipedia:consensus, you see
2008-01-16 21:14 < kim_bruning> it isn't the first version ;-)
2008-01-16 21:14 < AzaTht> kim_bruning: probably because I'm a geek :)
2008-01-16 21:14 < kim_bruning> nice thing about svg's is that you can edit them (even if it is offline)
2008-01-16 21:15 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, heh! cool :-)
2008-01-16 21:17 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, so does the flowchart still cause pathological behavior someplace, or does it not cover some contingency?
2008-01-16 21:17 * kim_bruning is a glutton for punishment ;-)
2008-01-16 21:18 < AzaTht> kim_bruning: if you makes an revert, and a second later, som fixes an typo, then according to the chart, we have consensus
2008-01-16 21:18 < AzaTht> someone*
2008-01-16 21:19 < kim_bruning> I see
2008-01-16 21:19 < kim_bruning> so it is not thread-safe?
2008-01-16 21:19 < AzaTht> yea :)
2008-01-16 21:20 < kim_bruning> well, the state of consensus would rapidly be perturbed again
2008-01-16 21:20 < AzaTht> someone must do an edit first
2008-01-16 21:20 < NotACow> DEATH TO CONSENSUS
2008-01-16 21:20 < kim_bruning> AzaTht, well they typically would, since they would be out-of-sync
2008-01-16 21:21 < kim_bruning> especially with second intervals
2008-01-16 21:21 < NotACow> consensus is a littl bird, chirping in a meadow.
2008-01-16 21:21 < Kannie> Hi
2008-01-16 21:21 < kim_bruning> although you can think of a degenerative case, I guess
2008-01-16 21:21 < kim_bruning> Kannie, hi!
2008-01-16 21:21 < NotACow> wikipedia is a degenerative case
2008-01-16 21:21 < AzaTht> I would change "article" to some more in line of "context"
2008-01-16 21:22 < Kannie> I have a question to ask. When I use WHOIS, how do I distinguish between a static IP and a dynamic IP?
2008-01-16 21:22 < AzaTht> Kannie: you cannot 100%, but often the DNS can tell
2008-01-16 21:23 < Kannie> AzaTht:Sorry for being ignorant, but what's a DNS?
2008-01-16 21:23 < NotACow> Kannie: you have to know
2008-01-16 21:23 < bumm13> domain name service
2008-01-16 21:23 < NotACow> Kannie: some ranges are obvious, others less so
2008-01-16 21:23 < NotACow> if the rDNS contains "dhcp" or "dyn", odds are it's dynamic
2008-01-16 21:24 < Kannie> Oh, thanks!
2008-01-16 21:24 < bumm13> (allows use of names for Internet sites in addition to numbers such as 12.34.56.789)
2008-01-16 21:24 < Demi> except when it's not, of course
2008-01-16 21:24 < bumm13> hiya Demi
2008-01-16 21:24 < NotACow> Kannie: of course, that's not definitive. some static IPs live in dynamic ranges, and vice versa.
2008-01-16 21:25 < Kannie> *nods*
2008-01-16 21:25 < Demi> in the long term, no IP address is permanent. their lifetimes vary.
2008-01-16 21:26 < Kannie> Yeah, I figured that
2008-01-16 21:26 < NotACow> yeah, actually that's one of the faults of wikiscanner
2008-01-16 21:27 < Kannie> And of being an anon user!
2008-01-16 21:29 < Kannie> hey weasel
2008-01-16 21:30 < quanticle> Hello TheWeasel
2008-01-16 21:30 < Kannie> *twiddles thumbs* Back to recent changes!
2008-01-16 21:35 < LuciferTiger> MythBusters!!!
2008-01-16 21:39 < NotACow> moo
2008-01-16 21:42 < LuciferTiger> lol thats exactly the sort of behavior that makes ppl think ure a bot NotACow
2008-01-16 21:43 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: The behavior might be intentional in that regard.
2008-01-16 21:43 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Build up assumptions, then shatter them...
2008-01-16 21:44 < LuciferTiger> quanticle: The statement was intentional in that regard
2008-01-16 21:44 < LuciferTiger> quanticle: Type something up, then mean the opposite
2008-01-16 21:44 < quanticle> Speaking of which, what kind of sound would a quanticle make?
2008-01-16 21:45 < LuciferTiger> whats a quanticle?
2008-01-16 21:45 < quanticle> Also, what's the sound of a dying giraffe?
2008-01-16 21:45 < LuciferTiger> a quantum sound?
2008-01-16 21:45 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Yes
2008-01-16 21:46 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Related question, does Schroedinger's cat mew?
2008-01-16 21:46 < gwern> I always found Ruby not supporting Unicode well to be very strange
2008-01-16 21:47 < quanticle> gwern: Ruby doesn't do unicode?
2008-01-16 21:47 < gwern> I mean, it was created by the *Japanese*. of all people (except maybe the Chinese), you'd think that a programming language created by them would support bizarre scripts and writing systems well
2008-01-16 21:47 < gwern> quanticle: not yet, apparently
2008-01-16 21:48 < gwern> quanticle: there are work arounds for like Ruby on Rails, but unicode is apparently supposed to come with Ruby 2
2008-01-16 21:50 < LuciferTiger> quanticle: We cannot tell without altering the observation
2008-01-16 21:53 < LuciferTiger> lol and if we really misinterpret the principle, it half mews and is half silent
2008-01-16 21:53 < Starnestommy> eek, wikipedia's acting up
2008-01-16 21:53 < uberpenguin> well if you think that uncertainty is about observation modifying a system, you've already misinterpreted it :)
2008-01-16 21:53 < LuciferTiger> we kinda know that Starnestommy
2008-01-16 21:54 < LuciferTiger> yeah i was thinking 2 things at the time and mixed them up
2008-01-16 21:54 < LuciferTiger> i was thinking of that wave thing... the position and velocity stuff
2008-01-16 21:55 < uberpenguin> position and momentum
2008-01-16 21:55 < uberpenguin> or energy and time
2008-01-16 21:55 < uberpenguin> or any other pair of non-commuting observables
2008-01-16 21:56 < uberpenguin> it's okay... few people understand can get any QM principles straight without having had some formal introduction to it
2008-01-16 21:56 < LuciferTiger> <-- isnt really a quantum physics guy
2008-01-16 21:56 * uberpenguin neither
2008-01-16 21:56 < LuciferTiger> totally loved classical physics
2008-01-16 22:02 < LuciferTiger> anyone else watching SmashLab?
2008-01-16 22:11 < phed_> aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
2008-01-16 22:11 < phed_> I made a mistake
2008-01-16 22:12 < phed_> and that was to try arguing for consensus in the What The Bleep Do We Know article :(
2008-01-16 22:14 < LuciferTiger> phed_.... did u get phed up trying to get them all to agree?
2008-01-16 22:15 < phed_> I'm about to be very phed up yes
2008-01-16 22:18 < phed_> hmf
2008-01-16 22:19 < phed_> but the article falls between eh "describe the controversy", "fringe", "pseudoscience", and tons of other policies
2008-01-16 22:20 < phed_> and because of policies it seems some editors feel it is ok to introduce POV that the movie should be bashed
2008-01-16 22:20 < phed_> and all I see is sources where materialists are emotionally outraged at the content, whereas anyone with a philosophical knack is able to see through it
2008-01-16 22:26 < forgotten> Hello
2008-01-16 22:27 < Alkivar> wow this dude gets much respect from me:
2008-01-16 22:27 < Alkivar> http://youtube.com/watch?v=JaQ7lR5F2hA
2008-01-16 22:27 < Alkivar> he's fucking blind and he entered the DMC battle in 96
2008-01-16 22:28 < quanticle> phed_: Which article?
2008-01-16 22:28 < phed_> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know%21%3F :)
2008-01-16 22:32 < phed_> quanticle: one person wants to have WTB is a 2004 movie that misrepresents science, vs most other who wants it a bit more nuanced than that
2008-01-16 22:33 < quanticle> phed_: WTB?
2008-01-16 22:33 < quanticle> Want to Buy?
2008-01-16 22:33 < phed_> what the blee
2008-01-16 22:33 < phed_> *bleep
2008-01-16 22:34 < phed_> it is not such a great movie either
2008-01-16 22:34 < phed_> but the rational skeptics get so damn emotional about it because it is about spirituality
2008-01-16 22:34 < phed_> (and its relation to science)
2008-01-16 22:35 < quanticle> phed_: That movie looks like pretty classical pseudo-science to me. Take a bunch of terminology, add 2 cups of spirituality, andd a hint of cultism, and stir
2008-01-16 22:35 < LuciferTiger> well the spiritualists and evangelists blow their caps over science stuff too
2008-01-16 22:36 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: True. But going for this crap in response to hardline fundamentalism is like taking Stalin over Hitler.
2008-01-16 22:36 < quanticle> And yes, I did just Godwin the discussion
2008-01-16 22:37 < phed_> Yeah, but I think this is pushing POV into an article, which is what people object to
2008-01-16 22:37 < phed_> the movie ain't that bad. it is kinda stupid, but nothing to be so riled up about.
2008-01-16 22:37 < phed_> sure, there are some arguable errors. But most of the criticism is against the fact that it is spiritual at all.
2008-01-16 22:37 < LuciferTiger> lol i wasnt really thinking bout Godwinning... but yeah u have the point.
2008-01-16 22:38 < phed_> Counsciesness Causes Collapse is causing exact the same upstir, except that debate has lasted 50 years without resolve
2008-01-16 22:38 < phed_> The funny thing is that this depends on wether you believe the current science is an absolute authority or not
2008-01-16 22:39 < quanticle> phed_: Some things cannot be really resolved on Wikipedia. My advice in those cases is to just let it go...
2008-01-16 22:39 < LuciferTiger> phed_: which i believe is not.
2008-01-16 22:39 < Leslie_S> bleh.
2008-01-16 22:39 < phed_> LuciferTiger: some Rational Skeptics thinks so, and they are numerous on wikipedia
2008-01-16 22:39 < LuciferTiger> not in favor of spirituality but i believe that theres always room for improvement.
2008-01-16 22:40 < quanticle> phed_: Philosophical discussions, ethnic disagreements, all these supercede Wikipedia, and therefore cannot be resolved in Wiki, until they have been resolved outside Wiki...
2008-01-16 22:41 < LuciferTiger> i used to think Rational Skeptics are the ones who want to think bout stuff rationally before believing it
2008-01-16 22:41 < IceKarma> good evening, quanticle, Leslie_S
2008-01-16 22:41 < phed_> quanticle: Yeah, the fact is that this is one of the few movies that discusses this difference between skeptics and spiritual people
2008-01-16 22:42 < quanticle> IceKarma: And good evening to you too.
2008-01-16 22:43 < phed_> quanticle: I'm trying to suggest ways to reach concensus by attribution and "describe the controversy". but alas ...
2008-01-16 22:44 < quanticle> phed_: "Describe the controversy", as a method for reaching consensus is doomed to failure, since it is in both sides self-interest to slant the description towards their own ends.
2008-01-16 22:44 < quanticle> phed_: That's why I was so amused when Bush recommended that strategy for teaching evolution
2008-01-16 22:47 < phed_> heh
2008-01-16 22:47 < phed_> well, here in norway we don't have the concept mainstream science at all so all this bullshit is literally foreign for me
2008-01-16 22:47 < LuciferTiger> maybe its just me, but rejecting evolution in favor of ID is stupid
2008-01-16 22:48 < phed_> LuciferTiger, at the same time neo-darwinism is stupid too
2008-01-16 22:48 < LuciferTiger> i mean yeah you might doubt evolution as a theory based on the holes in it...
2008-01-16 22:48 < LuciferTiger> but rejecting cuz the bible says so is stupid
2008-01-16 22:48 < phed_> I do not agree with neo-darwinism, but that doesn't make me even contemplate ID
2008-01-16 22:49 < phed_> I do agree with some of their arguments, that yes, indeed, evolution seems a notch smarter than evolution says it is
2008-01-16 22:49 < LuciferTiger> IMHO, both the parties, the ones who say theres NO evolution and the ones who say theres NO God are being insufferable idiots
2008-01-16 22:49 < phed_> But come on, this intelligence is probably a result of evolution!
2008-01-16 22:50 < phed_> it is as if the concept "thinking for yourself" is illegal in most parts of the US
2008-01-16 22:50 < LuciferTiger> exactly my point phed_ !
2008-01-16 22:50 < Axeman> Aah.
2008-01-16 22:50 < Leslie_S> wtf is neo darwinism?
2008-01-16 22:50 < Axeman> Am I home?
2008-01-16 22:50 < Kannie> LuciferTiger: The intelligience to create a God is caused by evolution.
2008-01-16 22:50 < phed_> Leslie_S, the idea that evolution is solely driven by mutations
2008-01-16 22:50 < Kannie> Axeman, is wikipedia your home?
2008-01-16 22:50 < LuciferTiger> Leslie_S: its the opposite of a bible thumper
2008-01-16 22:50 < Leslie_S> phed_ meh. how do you propose it happened?
2008-01-16 22:51 < Axeman> Someone give me succor of familiarity
2008-01-16 22:51 < Axeman> it's...
2008-01-16 22:51 < phed_> Leslie_S, tons of anamolous research
2008-01-16 22:51 < LuciferTiger> Leslie_S: part mutations, part divine intervention
2008-01-16 22:51 < Axeman> How happy am I to see familiar faces
2008-01-16 22:51 < Kannie> Lucifer:Can the divine intervention be proved?
2008-01-16 22:51 < Leslie_S> phed_ wtf?
2008-01-16 22:52 < phed_> but thanks to american's adherence to the scientific method, any unexplainable anamoly is ignored
2008-01-16 22:52 < phed_> Leslie_S: There are example of evolution occuring in steps instead of smooth microchanges
2008-01-16 22:52 < Leslie_S> phed_ what unexplainable anamaly is being ignored?
2008-01-16 22:52 < LuciferTiger> its my theory. as unprovable as ID and neo darvinism
2008-01-16 22:53 < phed_> there is also the concept of parallell evolution
2008-01-16 22:53 < phed_> there are a few explained mechanisms where environment affects DNA
2008-01-16 22:54 < Leslie_S> phed_: gimme some examples where this happened. sounds intriguing.
2008-01-16 22:54 < phed_> but if you have a cursory knowledge of molecular biology you know that this is probably the subject we know the least about
2008-01-16 22:54 < Kannie> Well, Lucifer, extremism is never provable, true.
2008-01-16 22:54 < phed_> hmm, don't have them handy
2008-01-16 22:55 < Leslie_S> phed_ that makes me sad. try to find them. :P
2008-01-16 22:55 < phed_> Leslie_S: I've mostly read about these in norwegian newspapers
2008-01-16 22:55 < LuciferTiger> Kannie: evolution is prolly a fact... but it may not be the whole truth
2008-01-16 22:55 < phed_> ie. research on salmon
2008-01-16 22:55 < Kannie> Phed_:So, for example, if there is a 'nuclear emergency', and there may very well be where I live, I might give birth to say, a child with two heads.
2008-01-16 22:55 < phed_> uh
2008-01-16 22:56 < phed_> no, but many people might develop the same "mutations" giving rise to radioactivity resistance
2008-01-16 22:56 < phed_> by the arguments of neo-darwinism one would get faster adoption rates by applying radioactivity
2008-01-16 22:56 < Kannie> phed_:You get my point.
2008-01-16 22:56 < Axeman> BEEP BEEP
2008-01-16 22:56 < Axeman> HERE COMES THE FAILDOZER
2008-01-16 22:57 < LuciferTiger> ooolala
2008-01-16 22:57 < Kannie> LuciferTiger:Well, you're right. There's also the current enviroment around us that makes us who we are.
2008-01-16 22:57 < Leslie_S> Kannie, you mean lonely, depressed, suicidal?
2008-01-16 22:57 < LuciferTiger> lol
2008-01-16 22:58 < Leslie_S> i feel so alone in life ;/
2008-01-16 22:58 < Kannie> Leslie_S:Eh?
2008-01-16 22:58 < Leslie_S> Kannie just a dumb comment.
2008-01-16 22:59 < Kannie> Leslie_S:I think that's an issue that you need to resolve offline. :-|
2008-01-16 22:59 < Leslie_S> Kannie im not suicidal.
2008-01-16 22:59 < Kannie> I take depression and suicidiality seriously.
2008-01-16 22:59 < Leslie_S> im working on the depression.
2008-01-16 22:59 < LuciferTiger> Kannie: i also leave open the possiblity that evolution might have been kicked off by some divine intervention.
2008-01-16 22:59 < Axeman> I'm kind of sad
2008-01-16 22:59 < Leslie_S> but pretty much everyone is depressed.
2008-01-16 22:59 < Axeman> the forums I once liked have either degenerated into immature spam-filled 12-year-old hell-pits, banned me, become inactive, or disappeared
2008-01-16 22:59 < Leslie_S> to a certain extent.
2008-01-16 22:59 < Leslie_S> Axeman sounds like me
2008-01-16 23:00 < LuciferTiger> Axeman: which ones
2008-01-16 23:00 < Axeman> Leslie_S: at least I know you, sorta...
2008-01-16 23:00 < Kannie> LuciferTiger:All right, fine then. I'll let you think that.
2008-01-16 23:00 < Axeman> LuciferTiger: a lot
2008-01-16 23:00 < Leslie_S> Axeman and i thought i had a decent social life started in real life, but i basically have no real friends at the moment.
2008-01-16 23:00 < Axeman> RIO and YRL banned me, most channels on freenode are filled with unfamiliar places, DJ+ and 420chan are inactive, and FEU is infected by 12-year-olds
2008-01-16 23:01 < Axeman> leslie_s: same here
2008-01-16 23:01 < Leslie_S> i just ditched the girl i usually hang out with. i like her roommate, who is a pretty awesome person.
2008-01-16 23:01 < Axeman> never really had many real friends
2008-01-16 23:01 < Kannie> I maturely joined a cerebral palsy parenting list at the age of 12. They banned me because I was mature that they thought I was fake. True!
2008-01-16 23:01 < Leslie_S> but....i dont think i'll be able to hang out with her roommate, because shes basically impossible to contact.
2008-01-16 23:01 < Kannie> Axeman:Me neither.
2008-01-16 23:01 < Axeman> aah
2008-01-16 23:01 < Axeman> it's like...
2008-01-16 23:01 < Kannie> I'm 17 now, BTW.
2008-01-16 23:01 < Axeman> but because I don't have a real life, I spend most of my time online
2008-01-16 23:01 < Kannie> Yeah.
2008-01-16 23:02 < Axeman> so if I get banned on a forum... it has a bigger impact on me
2008-01-16 23:02 < Axeman> or if something happens
2008-01-16 23:02 < bumm13> Kannie: you have CP?
2008-01-16 23:02 < Kannie> I dropped outta school. No point, wasn't anything, wasn't really socializing, and had a reputation for being the girl who didn't talk.
2008-01-16 23:02 < bumm13> aww :(
2008-01-16 23:02 < Kannie> Bumm:Yeah, I have CP. Mild ataxic CP.
2008-01-16 23:02 < bumm13> I see
2008-01-16 23:02 < Kannie> *wasn't learning anything
2008-01-16 23:02 < Leslie_S> Axeman i used to do that, but it sucks.
2008-01-16 23:02 < Axeman> leslie_s: meh
2008-01-16 23:02 < Kannie> Well, at least we have each other.
2008-01-16 23:03 < Axeman> yeah
2008-01-16 23:03 < bumm13> I made it through high school but I wasn't a stellar student, just average (grade-wise)
2008-01-16 23:03 < LuciferTiger> Kannie: Atheist or just dont think that She has anything to do with evolution?
2008-01-16 23:03 < Axeman> until I'm banned here too :P
2008-01-16 23:03 < Leslie_S> the thing that really pisses me off about the girl i ditched is that she strung me along and led me to believe that she was a decent person who actually wanted to be my friend.
2008-01-16 23:03 < Leslie_S> for like 2 months
2008-01-16 23:03 < Kannie> LuciferTiger:Athiest.
2008-01-16 23:03 < Axeman> ahrghrghhg
2008-01-16 23:03 < Axeman> CP shouldn't be illegal if you're under 18
2008-01-16 23:03 < Leslie_S> and essentially used me for rides because i have a car
2008-01-16 23:03 < Axeman> srsly
2008-01-16 23:03 < Axeman> actually, CP shouldn't be illegal >_>
2008-01-16 23:04 < Leslie_S> and apparently when she hung out with me, she did it because i wouldnt give her rides unless she hung out with me.
2008-01-16 23:04 * Leslie_S shrugs
2008-01-16 23:04 < Axeman> being arrested for having CP on your drive... is having something that came from somewhere where someone did something that could have been bad
2008-01-16 23:04 < Leslie_S> im so stupid :(
2008-01-16 23:04 < Axeman> naw
2008-01-16 23:04 * Axeman hugs Leslie_S
2008-01-16 23:05 < LuciferTiger> lol i was atheist for a while too when i was 17
2008-01-16 23:05 * Axeman hasn't taken a shower in a few days
2008-01-16 23:05 * Axeman isn't a big fan of brushing his teeth either
2008-01-16 23:05 < Leslie_S> i forgot to put makeup on this morning before school
2008-01-16 23:05 < Leslie_S> ;/
2008-01-16 23:05 < Kannie> Axeman:And CP would stand for..
2008-01-16 23:05 < Leslie_S> i even bought new eyeliner the other day and havent used it yet
2008-01-16 23:05 < LuciferTiger> whats CP?
2008-01-16 23:05 < Axeman> child pr0nz
2008-01-16 23:06 < Kannie> Ooh.
2008-01-16 23:06 < Axeman> ZOMGZ
2008-01-16 23:06 < LuciferTiger> Kannie has a mild case of child porrn?
2008-01-16 23:06 * Axeman lulzed
2008-01-16 23:06 < bumm13> :P
2008-01-16 23:06 < phed_> I have tons of friends, but I am to socially reclusive to actually use them
2008-01-16 23:06 < Kannie> LuciferTiger:Yeah, that was what I was thinking.
2008-01-16 23:06 < Kannie> lol
2008-01-16 23:07 < Axeman> I wonder if it would be illegal for someone over 18 to have self-taken pictures of themself, taken before they were 18
2008-01-16 23:07 < LuciferTiger> phed_ im kinda the same
2008-01-16 23:07 < phed_> not for that, I have great social skills. I just got burnt out from working a buncha years ago and since I haven't been able to actively pursue anything.
2008-01-16 23:07 < Kannie> Axeman:Nude pics, right?
2008-01-16 23:07 < Axeman> kannie: of course
2008-01-16 23:07 < phed_> I notice a lot of people feel the same, and i blame the society for being anti-social :)
2008-01-16 23:08 < LuciferTiger> kannie, what was your idea of CP?
2008-01-16 23:08 < Axeman> phed_: was I supposed to lol at that?
2008-01-16 23:08 < phed_> Axeman, well, I kinda lol at that
2008-01-16 23:08 < Axeman> heh
2008-01-16 23:08 < OverlordQ> [[Image:Myami_Real_12.jpg]] Why do I have to call shenanigans on that Licensing claim?
2008-01-16 23:08 < phed_> tragedy is comedy
2008-01-16 23:09 < Axeman> phed_: yeah, but "jews did wtc" isn't funny
2008-01-16 23:09 < Axeman> <_<
2008-01-16 23:09 < phed_> Axeman, it is funny because it is true
2008-01-16 23:09 < Kannie> LuciferTiger:Well, acronym wise I was thinking of cerebral palsy, of course, that's I always think. Child porn, well, I could see teens and even some preteens going into that consensually. No, they shouldn't get into trouble if they should keep footage of that after the age of 18.
2008-01-16 23:09 < Axeman> phed_: mostly my fault...
2008-01-16 23:10 < LuciferTiger> no no all i wanted to know was what did u mean when u said u had CP
2008-01-16 23:10 < LuciferTiger> cerebral plasy as i get it
2008-01-16 23:11 < Kannie> CP means that a part of the brain that controls your muscles is either damaged in early life or never really developed. In my case, it's the latter case in my cerebullum.
2008-01-16 23:11 < LuciferTiger> Kannie: thats like getting screwed for having a vid of your bundle of joy crawling over the room without diapers
2008-01-16 23:11 < Kannie> *nods*
2008-01-16 23:12 < LuciferTiger> that as in the previous thing
2008-01-16 23:12 < LuciferTiger> man im lagging.
2008-01-16 23:12 < Kannie> Yeah! Yeah! I get it!
2008-01-16 23:12 < LuciferTiger> <-- is watching A Daily SHow... please pardon any lagging comments
2008-01-16 23:12 < Kannie> My parents are watching the daily show.
2008-01-16 23:12 < LuciferTiger> im sure im not as old as them
2008-01-16 23:13 < Kannie> They're both in their 50's.
2008-01-16 23:13 < OverlordQ> LuciferTiger: hah, yea I remember reading story of parents getting yelled at because they were taking picsture of their kid in a park, even though the kid had clothes on and was in a stroller
2008-01-16 23:13 < Kannie> OverlordQ:Where did you read that?
2008-01-16 23:14 < OverlordQ> can't remember
2008-01-16 23:14 < OverlordQ> I know it was on fark, but it's been a while
2008-01-16 23:15 < Kannie> Were they--the yellers--worried that the pics taken by the yellees were going to be posted online and then have their heads photoshopped by pedophiles.
2008-01-16 23:15 < Kannie> I think the above would be an urban legend.
2008-01-16 23:15 < LuciferTiger> hey see what i did a few comments back?? i took an argument and proved i was right with a very extreme - prolly dubious, and mostly out of context - case.
2008-01-16 23:15 < LuciferTiger> theres a name for that kind of an argument.
2008-01-16 23:16 < Rinn> I wonder if one could make money doing that.
2008-01-16 23:16 < Kannie> Which argument? Where?
2008-01-16 23:16 < Rinn> Taking pictures of cute faces and giving them to people to photoshop.
2008-01-16 23:16 < Axeman> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Staaarz.jpg
2008-01-16 23:16 < Axeman> okay, wut
2008-01-16 23:16 < Kannie> Rinn:Yeah, prolly.
2008-01-16 23:16 < Axeman> that's CP
2008-01-16 23:16 < LuciferTiger> the getting screwed for taking pics of your kid argument
2008-01-16 23:17 < Axeman> what the fuck
2008-01-16 23:17 < Kannie> Lucifer:Oh
2008-01-16 23:17 < Rinn> Pretty tame.
2008-01-16 23:17 < Kannie> Yeah, I know.
2008-01-16 23:19 < Kannie> :does the funky chicken dance*
2008-01-16 23:19 < bumm13> õ<
2008-01-16 23:19 < Kannie> Dum de dum dum dum! *twiddles thumbs*
2008-01-16 23:20 < Kannie> So...yeah, you guys play any MUDs?
2008-01-16 23:20 < LuciferTiger> mud?
2008-01-16 23:21 < Demi> i have, not currently
2008-01-16 23:21 < Kannie> Multi user dimensions. If you played one, you would know what it is.
2008-01-16 23:21 < LuciferTiger> lol havent then
2008-01-16 23:21 < Kannie> I'm playing Lusternia. I'm Kifia on it.
2008-01-16 23:21 < Rinn> My attention span's too short for those.
2008-01-16 23:22 < quanticle> Kannie: Its a multi-user *dungeon*
2008-01-16 23:22 < Kannie> Yeah, mine too, actually. I can't ever be with one charactor.
2008-01-16 23:22 < Kannie> Qunaticle:Does it matter?
2008-01-16 23:22 < quanticle> Kannie: Yes ;)
2008-01-16 23:22 < Kannie> Why?
2008-01-16 23:23 < quanticle> Kannie: kidding
2008-01-16 23:23 < Kannie> Eh. Thought so.
2008-01-16 23:24 < quanticle> The issue I have with MUDs is that I always get disoriented
2008-01-16 23:24 < Mike_H> only seven designers are left
2008-01-16 23:24 < Mike_H> on Project Runway
2008-01-16 23:24 < Kannie> As in, the world is a maze and you always get lost?
2008-01-16 23:24 < Axeman> wut?
2008-01-16 23:24 < Demi> i was always more of a musher
2008-01-16 23:25 < Kannie> Never sure if you go east, west, or up?
2008-01-16 23:25 < Axeman> You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike.
2008-01-16 23:25 < quanticle> Kannie: Yeah.
2008-01-16 23:25 < Kannie> lol
2008-01-16 23:25 < Demi> n n n n n e e n n e s s e e d w kick fido
2008-01-16 23:25 < Axeman> wut
2008-01-16 23:25 < Mike_H> I want Sweet P to win, even though she's ranked "low" four times out of eight
2008-01-16 23:25 < Rinn> N N S S W E W E B A
2008-01-16 23:26 < Kannie> Actually, Iron Realms Entertainment, the company that makes Lusternia, always makes unique muds.
2008-01-16 23:26 < Rinn> START
2008-01-16 23:26 < Mike_H> TheWeasel__: Heidi's lack of fluency in English was in full glory tonight.
2008-01-16 23:26 < Kannie> Rinn, what does B A mean?
2008-01-16 23:26 < Mike_H> She sounded worse than the REALLY FRENCH guest designer.
2008-01-16 23:26 < OverlordQ> lol
2008-01-16 23:26 < Rinn> Konami code.
2008-01-16 23:26 < quanticle> Kannie: What do you do to deal with that?
2008-01-16 23:26 < Kannie> oh
2008-01-16 23:26 < ryannnnnnnnnnn> Hey! does anyone know how to remove the border from this iframe so it blends in (it is a test) http://www.loopaustralia.com/?page_id=71
2008-01-16 23:26 < Kannie> Well, I go to www.lusternia.com and look at the maps.
2008-01-16 23:26 < Rinn> Nope! Not at all!
2008-01-16 23:27 < Mike_H> I have a feeling Rami is going to win, though
2008-01-16 23:27 < Kannie> Eh?
2008-01-16 23:27 < Mike_H> because he's already been on The Tyra Banks Show
2008-01-16 23:27 < Rinn> But you can have some Cheez-Its if you like!
2008-01-16 23:27 < Mike_H> and Top Model has taught me that Tyra rigs anything she touches
2008-01-16 23:27 < bumm13> Mike_H: you abandoned our pm! :(
2008-01-16 23:27 < Mike_H> I had to eat! :(
2008-01-16 23:27 < bumm13> heh
2008-01-16 23:27 < Kannie> Well, I can be a fashion designer with the right software, I think.
2008-01-16 23:28 < Kannie> Doubt it, though. There are guards around the palace, and the gates are *locked!*
2008-01-16 23:28 < Mike_H> one of the best designers on the show right now is 21, looks way emo
2008-01-16 23:28 < bumm13> :x
2008-01-16 23:28 < Mike_H> and sounds like Kelly from the "Shoes" video
2008-01-16 23:28 < bumm13> my current song playing
2008-01-16 23:28 < Kannie> I know nothing of this TV stuff. I spend my time online.
2008-01-16 23:28 < OverlordQ> ryannnnnnnnnnn: dont use iframes?
2008-01-16 23:29 * bumm13 NP: (The) Palace Guard - Falling Sugar (1965)
2008-01-16 23:29 < ryannnnnnnnnnn> OverlordQ: and use what?
2008-01-16 23:29 < Rinn> ryannnnnnnnnnn: Can I borrow some of your Ns?
2008-01-16 23:29 * ryannnnnnnnnnn hits Rinn with a wooden bat