freenode #wikipedia

2008-04-15 12:30 < zocky> that's the stated purpose of the tax
2008-04-15 12:31 < zocky> because it's a Good Thing (TM)
2008-04-15 12:31 < Golbez> zocky- the people who pay the inheritance tax didn't force anyone to give them that money, so it's hard to equate consensual earnings with "giving back" by force
2008-04-15 12:31 < zocky> for the capitalist minority, the regular people majority is like land to a farmer or environment to humankind
2008-04-15 12:31 < zocky> you have to use it in a sustainable manner
2008-04-15 12:31 < zocky> trying to get more and more and more without ever giving anything back lives you with nothing in the end
2008-04-15 12:32 < zocky> Golbez, but the government forced other people to give them that money through enforcing laws and contracts
2008-04-15 12:32 < zocky> without that, people who belatedly realize that they have the bad end of a deal would simply not pay up
2008-04-15 12:33 < Golbez> zocky- you're assuming people who get rich get rich only because they lie, cheat, and steal
2008-04-15 12:33 < Golbez> and could only do it with state protection
2008-04-15 12:33 < zocky> Golbez, no, I'm assuming that they get rich because they get more out of a deal than the other person they're dealing with
2008-04-15 12:33 < Golbez> then you don't understand the fundamentals of trade
2008-04-15 12:34 < zocky> and yes, you can't accumulate wealth without state protection
2008-04-15 12:34 < Golbez> and i am not about to waste my time teaching you
2008-04-15 12:34 < Golbez> everything you are saying is horribly fallacious, and encourages me to stop talking to you for fear my IQ may start leaking.
2008-04-15 12:34 < quanticle> Golbez: The issue I have with repealing the inheritance tax is that I believe that wealth should be *earned*, not inherited.
2008-04-15 12:34 < zocky> Golbez, the fundamental of everything is that resources are finite
2008-04-15 12:35 < zocky> if one person becomes richer, they have access to a larger share of resources, which means that others have access to a smaller share of resources, ergo, everybody else becomes poorer
2008-04-15 12:35 < quanticle> Golbez: If you earn your wealth through hard work, then all the more power to you. But, I don't think that you ought to be able to control your wealth after you are dead.
2008-04-15 12:35 < zocky> you can't make such a trade that everybody ends up richer
2008-04-15 12:35 < zocky> that can be only achieved by increasing the quantity of resources
2008-04-15 12:36 < quanticle> zocky: Yeah you can. The enter purpose of trade is to increase utility for *both* parties.
2008-04-15 12:36 < quanticle> zocky: The entire point of trade is to make both sides richer.
2008-04-15 12:36 < zocky> quanticle, "utility" is not the same as "wealth"
2008-04-15 12:36 < LawrenceWCohen> er.... if I write 7 books that each sell 10,000,000 copies hardcover, and each of the 7 become a film that makes $700,000,000 worldwide, with my taking 5% of the gross, and sell an extra $100,000,000 a year of the merchandise with 5% of the gross to me... how is the stare empowering me to accumulate that wealth?
2008-04-15 12:36 < quanticle> zocky: Yes it is.
2008-04-15 12:36 < zocky> utility is what you can use right here right now
2008-04-15 12:36 < zocky> wealth is accumulated utility that you can use later at another place
2008-04-15 12:36 < Golbez> quanticle- what if I give it away before I die? Does that count?
2008-04-15 12:36 < zocky> a loaf of bread now is worth more than a ton of gold next year to somebody who's starving
2008-04-15 12:37 < quanticle> zocky: You are fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of utility in an economics concept. Utility is, in a basic sense, happiness.
2008-04-15 12:37 < quanticle> zocky: The purpose of trade is to make both sides happy. Wealth is a means to that end, but not the only means.
2008-04-15 12:37 < quanticle> Golbez: You have the right to do whatever you want with your wealth while you're still around.
2008-04-15 12:38 < Golbez> quanticle- so if I give it all to my son on my death bed, that's different from having my will give it to him?
2008-04-15 12:38 < zocky> quanticle, you're confusing the immediate effects with long-term effects
2008-04-15 12:38 < zocky> you can make a trade which makes you happier now and makes you unhappier in the long run
2008-04-15 12:38 < quanticle> zocky: Its not the government's job to stop such trade.
2008-04-15 12:39 < zocky> and what makes you happy (or not miserable) now is influenced a lot by how wealthy you are
2008-04-15 12:39 < zocky> quanticle, it's the government's job to keep the society sustainable
2008-04-15 12:39 < Golbez> also, i just realized i was having a much more reasoned conversation about government and economics with Schroeder than zocky. SCHROEDER! I mean, really. Try harder. =p
2008-04-15 12:39 < quanticle> zocky: If I want to screw myself over in the long run, that's my business, so long as I'm not dragging you down with me.
2008-04-15 12:39 < zocky> one way is to stop such trades, but that probably has too many negative consequences
2008-04-15 12:39 < zocky> another way is to have inheritance tax
2008-04-15 12:40 < quanticle> zocky: The government's job is to ensure that individual rights don't conflict. Keeping society sustainable is not the same thing.
2008-04-15 12:40 < zocky> quanticle, see, that's an extreme minority position where I live
2008-04-15 12:40 < quanticle> The reason we have government is to mediate conflicts between your rights and mine.
2008-04-15 12:40 < Golbez> where do you live, zocky?
2008-04-15 12:40 < zocky> slovenia
2008-04-15 12:40 < zocky> and it's like that in most of europe
2008-04-15 12:41 < quanticle> zocky: Ah. Its the typical Euro-nanny state vs. American-libertarian argument then.
2008-04-15 12:41 < zocky> the idea that people's wealth is not communal business is largely peculiarly anglo-saxon
2008-04-15 12:41 < quanticle> zocky: Its also been peculiarly effective in driving economic growth.
2008-04-15 12:42 < Golbez> zocky- well, perhaps, but the anglo-saxon culture has also prospered more than the others
2008-04-15 12:42 < zocky> quanticle, good for you. otoh, there are no people without health insurance here, my country doesn't bomb other countries, etc.
2008-04-15 12:43 < quanticle> zocky: And your unemployment rate in a relatively good economy is 9.6%, which is something that my country hasn't seen since 1976.
2008-04-15 12:43 < quanticle> Hell, we're in a *recession* and we're moaning because our unemployment rate *might* hit 5%.
2008-04-15 12:43 < zocky> quanticle, ah, but our unemployeds are probably better off than people on slave wages there
2008-04-15 12:43 < quanticle> zocky: Arguable.
2008-04-15 12:43 < Golbez> My city's unemployment rate is 3.5%. Winner.
2008-04-15 12:43 < zocky> happiness is not achieved through working yourself to death, after all
2008-04-15 12:44 < Golbez> Is happiness supplied by the state?
2008-04-15 12:44 < zocky> no
2008-04-15 12:44 < quanticle> zocky: Its also arguable as to whether it is a good thing for society to ensure that unemployed people can live as well as employed people.
2008-04-15 12:44 < Golbez> Can happiness be taken away by the state?
2008-04-15 12:44 < Werdna> My city's unemployment rate is 3.9%
2008-04-15 12:44 < zocky> quanticle, no, employed people live better than unemployed people
2008-04-15 12:44 < quanticle> Golbez: Certainly.
2008-04-15 12:44 < zocky> because nobody can pay a wage that's lower than unemployment benefit
2008-04-15 12:44 < zocky> simply because nobody will work for such a wage
2008-04-15 12:44 < quanticle> Golbez: I certainly wouldn't be happy to be in jail.
2008-04-15 12:45 < Golbez> zocky- which is unfortunate, because some jobs are only worth that small amount
2008-04-15 12:45 < zocky> Golbez, maybe, but no person's time i.e. life is worth that small amount
2008-04-15 12:45 < quanticle> zocky: Ok. I think minimum wages are fair, despite my otherwise libertarian sentiments, simply because I know that, without such legislation, businesses won't pay living wages, and will screw themselves over in the long run.
2008-04-15 12:45 < Golbez> That's for the person to decide, not you.
2008-04-15 12:46 < Golbez> quanticle- but that's not true at all, since the vast, vast majority of wages are over the minimum.
2008-04-15 12:46 < zocky> the person who choses between no money and small money is not choosing
2008-04-15 12:46 < quanticle> Golbez: The reason for that is that there is a minimum.
2008-04-15 12:46 < Golbez> if they required legislation to pay that much then they'd all just pay the minimum.
2008-04-15 12:47 < Golbez> zocky- actually he is, and he'd prefer you stay out of his business
2008-04-15 12:47 < zocky> the whole point is, success and "goodness" of a society is not measured in how much money it makes overall
2008-04-15 12:47 < Golbez> how is it measured?
2008-04-15 12:47 < zocky> Golbez, nah, they prefer unemployment benefits
2008-04-15 12:47 < quanticle> Golbez: That's true. I do think there's a happy medium to be had here. Its certainly unfair to argue for a $100 per hour minimum wage. However, I think it is an overreaction to say that, because a $100 per hour minimum wage is unfair, we should have no minimum wage at all.
2008-04-15 12:47 < zocky> in happiness of the people, and absence of misery
2008-04-15 12:48 < Golbez> quanticle- If a job is only worth $3 an hour, an apprenticeship or what not, should I not have the right to take that if I so choose? Because it's one of those jobs that, if it were forced to be offered at $7 an hour, simply would cease existing, leaving me, objectively, worse off.
2008-04-15 12:49 < zocky> Golbez, you're talkjng as if profits are non-existent or totally minimal
2008-04-15 12:49 < quanticle> Golbez: You're assuming that there's equal power between employers and employees, which, in the real world, is simply not the case.
2008-04-15 12:49 < Golbez> zocky- what do you mean
2008-04-15 12:49 < quanticle> Golbez: And pretending that there is such a power balance is a privilege reserved for the rich.
2008-04-15 12:49 < Golbez> quanticle- I don't think that has anything to do with what I said.
2008-04-15 12:49 < zocky> if the minimum wage is $7 and the company really needs the job done, they'll pay you $7 for it
2008-04-15 12:50 < zocky> Golbez, the difference in your pay will amount to very little compared with salaries of managers and profits of shareholders.
2008-04-15 12:50 < quanticle> Golbez: Yes it does. It implies that, as an employee, I have the same level of freedom to take my labor elsewhere as the employer does to hire the next candidate on the list. I don't think that's the case at all.
2008-04-15 12:50 < Golbez> zocky- That's incorrect. They desired the job - not needed - at $3, but can no longer afford it at $7. It would have helped provide added income for the company, but only at that lower wage.
2008-04-15 12:50 < zocky> Golbez, "can't afford it" is simply not true in the current economy
2008-04-15 12:51 < Golbez> quanticle- but that has nothing to do with a discussion of the morality of causing low-income jobs to go away, leaving more people unemployed than they would be otherwise. =p
2008-04-15 12:51 < quanticle> Golbez: If employers and employees had equal negotiating power, we wouldn't need minimum wages. However, equal negotiating power does not exist in the real world.
2008-04-15 12:51 < Golbez> zocky- hey, if you can speak abstract, so can i, this has nothing to do with the 'current economy'.
2008-04-15 12:51 < zocky> there was a strike at heathrow because the company wouldn't pay a living wage to its catering stuff, because it had 25 millions of losses
2008-04-15 12:51 < zocky> at the same time, they were paying 100 million to the managment
2008-04-15 12:52 < zocky> it's true that small companies sometimes can't afford to pay the living wage
2008-04-15 12:52 < Golbez> zocky- moronic, i agree. all companies will learn that lesson in time. that's not something to be forced.
2008-04-15 12:53 < zocky> but that's because they have to sell their products and services for little money, because everybody else is getting low wages.
2008-04-15 12:53 < zocky> Golbez, "in time"?
2008-04-15 12:53 < zocky> how long?
2008-04-15 12:53 < Golbez> who knows
2008-04-15 12:53 < zocky> so, hopefully it will all be OK some day?
2008-04-15 12:53 < Golbez> we certainly can't make things perfect instantly
2008-04-15 12:53 < quanticle> Golbez: Its true that, in the long run, markets will correct inefficiencies. However, it is also true that, in the long run, we're all dead.
2008-04-15 12:53 < zocky> my grandchildren will have a nicer life than me?
2008-04-15 12:54 < Golbez> zocky- er, yes, isn't that the point?
2008-04-15 12:54 < zocky> oh wait, no, they won't, cause I can't afford to have children now when I'm the right age
2008-04-15 12:54 < Golbez> for the next generation to be off?
2008-04-15 12:54 < Golbez> har
2008-04-15 12:54 < Golbez> actually you can, because you live in the magical land of slovenia, with free health care and no defense budget
2008-04-15 12:54 < zocky> I don't care if the economy or life of whatever is better in 100 years because I'll be dead
2008-04-15 12:54 < zocky> i don't care if it'll be better in 20 years, because I'll be in my fifties then
2008-04-15 12:55 < quanticle> Golbez: Market failures occur, because information is not perfect, negotiation is not costless, and humans aren't perfectly rational. I believe that's why regulation, such as minimum wage laws, security laws, insider trading laws, etc. needs to be present.
2008-04-15 12:55 < Golbez> ok let's make things better now
2008-04-15 12:55 < Golbez> ...
2008-04-15 12:55 < Golbez> this is when the government snaps its fingers and makes everything better, right?
2008-04-15 12:55 < zocky> Golbez, i'm just pointing out why the argument that it will eventually sort itself out is not a good one
2008-04-15 12:55 < quanticle> Golbez: No. Government exists (in an economic sense) to try to prevent market failure.
2008-04-15 12:56 < Golbez> quanticle- but zocky wants everything better NOW
2008-04-15 12:56 < Golbez> Not in 100 years, not in 20 years, NOW
2008-04-15 12:56 < Golbez> So I presume he expects the government to make that happen.
2008-04-15 12:56 < zocky> well, 20 years ago woudl have been good as well
2008-04-15 12:56 < quanticle> Golbez: If the market is broken, I too expect the government to fix it NOW.
2008-04-15 12:56 < Golbez> 20 years ago, Slovenia wasn't even independent. How was its government handling happiness then?
2008-04-15 12:56 < zocky> but yes, you can't expect people to sacrifice for something that'll give returns in 100 years
2008-04-15 12:56 < zocky> Golbez, better than now for most people
2008-04-15 12:56 < kingturtle> gmorning
2008-04-15 12:57 < quanticle> Golbez: If a market failure has occurred, fast action is better than slow action. The US learned this lesson in the Great Depression, where the conservatism of Hoover and the extant Federal Reserve exacerbated the economic crisis.
2008-04-15 12:58 < Golbez> quanticle- The depression was a clusterfuck all around.
2008-04-15 12:58 < Golbez> Though I would say the socialism of Roosevelt also greatly exacerbated it.
2008-04-15 12:58 < quanticle> zocky: To expect people to not sacrifice for something that'll give returns in a hundred years is silly. If that were the case, then long term revolutionary movements wouldn't exist.
2008-04-15 12:59 < zocky> quanticle, they all think the revolution is just about to come
2008-04-15 12:59 < Golbez> zocky- isn't that exactly what environmentalists are doing? asking people to sacrifice their economies now for some vacuous environmental bliss several generations down?
2008-04-15 12:59 < Golbez> and the governments behind these environmentalists
2008-04-15 12:59 < zocky> Golbez, yes, and they're having a hard time selling it
2008-04-15 12:59 < zocky> for precisely that reason
2008-04-15 13:00 < quanticle> Golbez: Well, I disagree. While Rooseveltian socialism isn't appropriate for the crisis occurring today, I do think that boosting inflation with government spending was an appropriate action to take *at* *the* *time*.
2008-04-15 13:00 < zocky> in any case, it's a different thing
2008-04-15 13:00 < zocky> environmentalists want us ALL to sacrifice for the good of the future generations
2008-04-15 13:01 < Golbez> and you only want the rich to sacrifice
2008-04-15 13:01 < zocky> which is different from most people sacrificing and a minority profiting for the supposed good of future generations
2008-04-15 13:01 < Golbez> regardless of how they became rich
2008-04-15 13:01 < decan> hi everybody....I'm trying to make a wikipedia CD, I downloaded the files (without images) where can I download the images??
2008-04-15 13:01 < quanticle> Golbez: I also think that the increased regulation of financial markets increased transperency and facilitated the free flow of information that is needed for a smoothly functioning market.
2008-04-15 13:01 < zocky> Golbez, sacrifice?
2008-04-15 13:01 < Golbez> yes. i made my money honest, and you want to steal it from me. and you will hurt me if I refuse.
2008-04-15 13:01 < zocky> Golbez, what sacrifice would it be for e.g. bill gates if 90% of his wealth was taken away?
2008-04-15 13:01 < zocky> would his children be hungry?
2008-04-15 13:02 < zocky> would he worry how to make ends meet?
2008-04-15 13:02 < Golbez> he would lose 90% of his wealth, and the world would be extremely harmed by the loss to his charities.
2008-04-15 13:02 < zocky> would his life be any different?
2008-04-15 13:02 < quanticle> zocky: It would be a sacrifice, since the government's priorities are not Bill Gates' priorities.
2008-04-15 13:02 < decan> I have to say, Is the Spanish version...:)...lighter than english one
2008-04-15 13:02 < quanticle> zocky: If Bill Gates wants to fund malaria research, but the government wants to help global warming, who is the government to take Bill Gates' money?
2008-04-15 13:02 < zocky> quanticle, that's not a good argument
2008-04-15 13:03 < zocky> hey, I didnt' argue that it should
2008-04-15 13:03 < quanticle> zocky: What right does the government have to say that this priority is more "deserving" than that?
2008-04-15 13:03 < zocky> i'm just saying it wouldn't be a sacrifice in any meaningful way
2008-04-15 13:03 < zocky> quanticle, errr... by the virtue of being elected?
2008-04-15 13:03 < Golbez> zocky- perhaps we should steal 90% of slovenia's money. based on my figures, that would leave each Slovenian with $2800. That's enough to live on in many parts of the world. It's going to a better place, zocky. Accept it. Move on. Stop complaining.
2008-04-15 13:03 < zocky> democracy, remember?
2008-04-15 13:03 * Golbez notes that Bill Gates is presently worth more than Slovenia.
2008-04-15 13:03 < Golbez> actually that's not true
2008-04-15 13:03 < zocky> Golbez, no he's not, and that's the whole point
2008-04-15 13:04 < quanticle> zocky: That's true, but allowing the government to take the money is tantamount to admitting that the government knows how best to spend the money, which I'd strongly argue isn't the case.
2008-04-15 13:04 < Golbez> he doesn't have an annual income of $48b
2008-04-15 13:04 < zocky> he's not worth more than any other human
2008-04-15 13:04 < Golbez> he's merely worth that
2008-04-15 13:04 < quanticle> zocky: Goverments aren't omniscient.
2008-04-15 13:04 < zocky> quanticle, of course it is the case
2008-04-15 13:04 < Golbez> zocky- then the poor are not worth more than him and should not be able to steal his money
2008-04-15 13:04 < zocky> quanticle, that's why we elect them for
2008-04-15 13:04 < quanticle> zocky: No. We elect governments to mediate disputes, not spend our money.
2008-04-15 13:04 < zocky> it's more likely that an elected government knows what's good than a self-appointed guy who's good at earning money
2008-04-15 13:04 < Golbez> so if the people somehow elect a government that steals from the poor and gives to the rich (as has happened in so many governments over history), that's okay with you? as long as god democracy is appeased?
2008-04-15 13:04 < zocky> quanticle, oh, and you pay taxes for what? MP wages?
2008-04-15 13:05 < Golbez> well that's just plain wrong lol
2008-04-15 13:05 < Golbez> i mean, let's look at Zimbabwe. Popular elections; democracy! Yet they elected someone who stole from the poor and gave to his rich cronies. I assume you have no problem with this.
2008-04-15 13:05 < Golbez> (he stole from the rich too, but that just made the poor poorer. viscious cycle.)
2008-04-15 13:05 < Golbez> vicious
2008-04-15 13:05 < quanticle> zocky: We pay taxes to provide for common goods, like roads, water, and schools. Goods and services that cannot be provided by the market because of the way that externalities work.
2008-04-15 13:06 < zocky> quanticle, exactly
2008-04-15 13:06 < zocky> quanticle, well, happiness and security are examples of goods that can't be provided by the market
2008-04-15 13:06 < decan> can anyone help me please?
2008-04-15 13:06 < Golbez> I think zocky has ignored me. :|
2008-04-15 13:06 < Golbez> decan- hm?
2008-04-15 13:06 < Golbez> oh
2008-04-15 13:06 < Golbez> downloading the images... huh.
2008-04-15 13:06 < zocky> Golbez, no, but it's hard to talk to everbody at once :)
2008-04-15 13:06 < Golbez> That would be a tremendously huge dump, I think.
2008-04-15 13:07 < quanticle> zocky: Nonsense. Security, perhaps not, but happiness can be provided by the market.
2008-04-15 13:07 < Golbez> But there is apparently a dump of them..
2008-04-15 13:07 < zocky> quanticle, yes, for some people, at the cost of misery of some other people
2008-04-15 13:07 < decan> Golbez, to a spanish version??
2008-04-15 13:07 < Golbez> decan- do you speak spanish? i don't know what kind of dumps the spanish wikipedia provides, you might be better asking in #wikipedia-es
2008-04-15 13:07 < quanticle> zocky: The entire purpose of trade is to increase *happiness* for both parties.
2008-04-15 13:08 < Golbez> Oh wait no, the en wikipedia does *not* supply image dumps anymore
2008-04-15 13:08 < Golbez> but es *might*, you'll have to ask them
2008-04-15 13:08 < zocky> quanticle, only if both parties are not miserable without the trade
2008-04-15 13:08 < quanticle> zocky: If happiness didn't go up for both side then one side wouldn't agree to the trade. Simple as that.
2008-04-15 13:08 < Golbez> free trade, by definition, is always mutually beneficial. if it's not, then one side was forced into it.
2008-04-15 13:08 < zocky> quanticle, reducing current misery takes precedence over long-term happiness, making deals in which one side is miserable inherently unfair.
2008-04-15 13:08 < quanticle> zocky: You need to take a course in basic micro-economics.
2008-04-15 13:09 < Golbez> I said that to him half an hour ago! =p
2008-04-15 13:09 < decan> Golbez...I'll keep trying..thanks
2008-04-15 13:09 < zocky> quanticle, that's like saying you need to take a course in basic marxism :)
2008-04-15 13:09 < Golbez> > then you don't understand the fundamentals of trade
2008-04-15 13:09 < quanticle> zocky: How are the two goals of reduced current misery and increased long-term happiness always mutually exclusive?
2008-04-15 13:10 < zocky> quanticle, not always, but that's not a requirement
2008-04-15 13:10 < quanticle> zocky: If the two goals aren't mutually exclusive, then where's the conflict?
2008-04-15 13:10 < Golbez> if i spend money now for a hamburger, but that money would have earned enough interest to buy my an appendectomy in 20 years, have i sacrificed long-term happiness for short-term non-misery
2008-04-15 13:10 < zocky> the point is that people often trade against their long-term interests because they have no other choice
2008-04-15 13:10 < quanticle> zocky: Example?
2008-04-15 13:11 < zocky> quanticle, working for a low wage
2008-04-15 13:11 < Golbez> people also often trade against their long-term interests because they want to.
2008-04-15 13:11 < Golbez> how does working for a low wage sacrifice their long-term interests more than not working at all
2008-04-15 13:11 < quanticle> zocky: Why is that working against their long term interest? I for one chose to work for a lower wage than I could have got elsewhere, because the work would be in my industry and would count on my resume.
2008-04-15 13:12 < quanticle> zocky: In this case, my long term interest dictated that I should take the lower paying job.
2008-04-15 13:12 < zocky> quanticle, you and me and golbez are examples of people for whom that sentence makes sense, but we're a minority
2008-04-15 13:12 < zocky> most people don't have careers
2008-04-15 13:12 < zocky> most people don't have resumes
2008-04-15 13:13 < Golbez> so you're saying they're worse off by accepting a low paying job than by not working at all?
2008-04-15 13:13 < zocky> most people have kids to feed and whatever job they can get to accomplish that
2008-04-15 13:13 < quanticle> zocky: So you're saying that you'd rather have them be unemployed?
2008-04-15 13:13 < zocky> Golbez, no, i'm saying that they're forced to chose between two deals, both of them unfavourable to them
2008-04-15 13:13 < zocky> working for a low wage doesn't increase happiness
2008-04-15 13:14 < zocky> it just reduces misery
2008-04-15 13:14 < Golbez> zocky- but one is more favorable, and also, that has nothing to do with your 'long-term interest' argument
2008-04-15 13:14 < Golbez> ...
2008-04-15 13:14 < Golbez> right
2008-04-15 13:14 < Golbez> well
2008-04-15 13:14 < Golbez> good luck, quanticle
2008-04-15 13:14 < Golbez> i can't handle this any longer. =p
2008-04-15 13:14 < zocky> how can you claim that these people freely chose to take this trade, when they have no alternative?
2008-04-15 13:15 < Golbez> <zocky> working for a low wage doesn't increase happiness
2008-04-15 13:15 < Golbez> <zocky> it just reduces misery
2008-04-15 13:15 < Golbez> that was the last straw
2008-04-15 13:15 < Golbez> because sane people would probably see the two as synonymous =p
2008-04-15 13:15 < quanticle> zocky: Ok, lets go with the typical "sweatshop" example. Western activists often get flustered by the poor working conditions and low wages at Asian garment factories. However, in a recent book, I read interviews with those very laborers. They said that they're actually *upset* with the Western activists for sending them back to the farm, because the wages are even lower for farm work, and the working conditions are worse.
2008-04-15 13:15 < zocky> golbez, so you would call somebody who's less miserable than his neighbour automatically happy?
2008-04-15 13:16 < quanticle> zocky: Source: http://www.amazon.com/Travels-T-Shirt-Global-Economy-Economist/dp/0470039205/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208279764&sr=8-1
2008-04-15 13:16 < Golbez> zocky- no, i would say that making you less miserable increases your happiness (but doesn't necessarily make you 'happy'). just as, if i'm happy and something increases my misery, i'm not necessarily 'miserable'. it's all on the same continuum.
2008-04-15 13:17 < zocky> quanticle, yes, techonology brings progress. working in a factory is better than working on a farm. that doesn't mean that workers in a factory are getting a fair deal. and it's possible that they're getting the best possible deal they can in asia, but that doesn't mean we should tolerate the same conditions here.
2008-04-15 13:18 < zocky> Golbez, the difference is that when you're happy you can choose to stop yourself making happier and still be happy
2008-04-15 13:18 < zocky> Golbez, if you chose not to reduce your misery, you're still miserable
2008-04-15 13:18 < Golbez> zocky- again, you aren't getting it, and i can't describe it any better.
2008-04-15 13:18 < Golbez> increasing happiness = reducing misery
2008-04-15 13:18 < Golbez> ~fin~
2008-04-15 13:19 < zocky> Golbez, that's like saying warmer ice = colder water
2008-04-15 13:19 < zocky> sorry, not right
2008-04-15 13:19 < zocky> warmer ice = less cold water or something
2008-04-15 13:19 < zocky> it's basically true, but it misses the point
2008-04-15 13:20 < zocky> there's a cut-off point at which incentives change
2008-04-15 13:20 < zocky> less pain = more pleasure in theory, but people are prepared to do more to reduce pain than increase pleasure
2008-04-15 13:20 < quanticle> zocky: That's true that we shouldn't tolerate those same working conditions here. However, this creates an imbalance. Currently China can outproduce us, simply because they're willing to tolerate a higher human cost.
2008-04-15 13:21 < zocky> quanticle, and because we're willing to buy their products
2008-04-15 13:21 < Golbez> quanticle- also, the fact that they have 1.3 billion people. =p
2008-04-15 13:21 < zocky> i'm not claiming that globalization is good
2008-04-15 13:22 < quanticle> zocky: So you're saying that you'd rather have the Chinese peasants working on farms than in garment factories? I'm not sure that they'd agree with you.
2008-04-15 13:22 < zocky> quanticle, i'd rather have our workers paid fair wages, and let chinese deal with their problems
2008-04-15 13:23 < quanticle> zocky: And what if they Chinese don't deal with their problems? What would you do then?
2008-04-15 13:23 < zocky> quanticle, what do we do when lesotho doesn't deal with its problems?
2008-04-15 13:23 < zocky> what do you do when the people down the street don't deal with their problems?
2008-04-15 13:24 < quanticle> zocky: Invading China to deal with its labor issues is not a good idea.
2008-04-15 13:24 < zocky> we don't have a common government with the chinese, nor a common legal system, further than some non-enforceable UN documents
2008-04-15 13:24 < zocky> we can't acutally change how china works
2008-04-15 13:24 < zocky> quanticle, who says we should invade them?
2008-04-15 13:25 < zocky> we simply stop buying their stuff because they don't have proper labour laws
2008-04-15 13:25 < quanticle> zocky: Trade embargo? We're so codependent with China we'd hurt ourselves as much as we hurt them.
2008-04-15 13:25 < zocky> "we" being our countries, i.e. governments
2008-04-15 13:25 < zocky> quanticle, maybe you, we don't own any sweatshops there
2008-04-15 13:25 < quanticle> zocky: True enough.
2008-04-15 13:26 < quanticle> zocky: To be honest, I really don't have an answer to this. The motivation for change will have to come from the Chinese workers themselves. We can't force better working conditions from the outside without massive disruptions that'd likely cause as much damage as good.
2008-04-15 13:26 < zocky> yep
2008-04-15 13:26 < zocky> we can't change their conditions
2008-04-15 13:27 < zocky> but we are changing our conditions by allowing the import of cheap products from china
2008-04-15 13:27 < weev> yo.
2008-04-15 13:27 < zocky> so we're not doing anything good for them, but we're screwing up our workers
2008-04-15 13:27 < weev> i'm here to chat.
2008-04-15 13:27 < weev> who here chats?
2008-04-15 13:27 < weev> i chat hard.
2008-04-15 13:27 < pazchat> you guys chattin in here?
2008-04-15 13:27 < quanticle> zocky: There is reason for hope though. Both England and America went through phases like this and emerged as well-adjusted countries.
2008-04-15 13:28 < pazchat> what are you chattin about?
2008-04-15 13:28 < zocky> quanticle, dunno, I'd never live in either
2008-04-15 13:28 < weev> pazchat: well
2008-04-15 13:28 < weev> i'd like to chat
2008-04-15 13:28 < weev> about how wikipedia censors encyclopedia dramatica unjustly
2008-04-15 13:28 < LawrenceWCohen> are we still discussing liberalism vs free markets or whatever it was? safe to look again?
2008-04-15 13:28 < weev> proving the bias and latent POV
2008-04-15 13:28 < pazchat> that sounds like a cool chat weev
2008-04-15 13:28 < Golbez> zomg censorship
2008-04-15 13:46 < Ceiling_Cat> too quiet in here
2008-04-15 13:46 < Ceiling_Cat> how am I supposed to procrastinate with nothing in here to distract me
2008-04-15 13:47 < Sarregouset> My question exactly.
2008-04-15 13:47 * Werdna distracs Ceiling_Cat
2008-04-15 13:47 < Leslie_S> sigh
2008-04-15 13:47 < Leslie_S> I'm getting a trucking job, and it involves 3 weeks of unpaid schooling
2008-04-15 13:47 < Leslie_S> How the heck am i gonna pay my rent?
2008-04-15 13:47 * Ceiling_Cat picks up White_Cat, shaves him bald, and flings him at Werdna
2008-04-15 13:47 < Ceiling_Cat> Cat fight!
2008-04-15 13:48 < Werdna> eek!
2008-04-15 13:48 < Werdna> nick chat-de-plafond
2008-04-15 13:49 < TheWeasel> Evening.
2008-04-15 13:50 < Werdna> for some reason I saw 'Uranus' written on the screen
2008-04-15 13:50 < TheWeasel> what an inurendo.
2008-04-15 13:51 < Ceiling_Cat> Werdna - a cold shower might help
2008-04-15 13:52 < TheWeasel> "Evening, squire."
2008-04-15 13:55 < TheWeasel> lol
2008-04-15 13:55 < TheWeasel> German Google Maps calls SLC "Salt Lake Stadt"
2008-04-15 13:57 < Netsniper> time to put on some shorts and bust some clods
2008-04-15 13:58 * Ceiling_Cat latches onto Cyrius
2008-04-15 13:58 * Werdna goes to bed
2008-04-15 13:58 < Werdna> nn all
2008-04-15 13:58 < Cyrius> aw crap
2008-04-15 13:58 < Ceiling_Cat> goodnight son
2008-04-15 14:00 < Ceiling_Cat> http://consumerist.com/362926/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables
2008-04-15 14:00 < Ceiling_Cat> He
2008-04-15 14:00 < Ceiling_Cat> he
2008-04-15 14:01 < Ceiling_Cat> Pricey audio cables versus coat hanger
2008-04-15 14:01 < Ceiling_Cat> which transmits a better signal?
2008-04-15 14:06 < Mike2> do you think this article will ever reach FA standards? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/269_%28number%29
2008-04-15 14:07 < Ceiling_Cat> No one has ever brought a number up to FA status
2008-04-15 14:08 < NotASpy> Ceiling_Cat: what about 0.999 - wasn't that on the Main Page at one point ?
2008-04-15 14:08 < Ceiling_Cat> hrm
2008-04-15 14:08 < Ceiling_Cat> I forgot about that
2008-04-15 14:08 < Ceiling_Cat> I stand corrected :P
2008-04-15 14:08 < NotASpy> and what about 42, is that a FA ?
2008-04-15 14:09 < Ceiling_Cat> no
2008-04-15 14:09 < NotASpy> yikes, it's not even a GA.
2008-04-15 14:29 < nicho> I want to edit an article without registering.
2008-04-15 14:29 < nicho> Can someone proxy for me?
2008-04-15 14:30 < The359> you can edit without registering
2008-04-15 14:31 < uyriry686> hello
2008-04-15 14:31 < uyriry686> j
2008-04-15 14:31 < tomaw> hi
2008-04-15 14:32 < uyriry686> www.HOTTIES4FREE.tk XXX BRUNETTES
2008-04-15 14:32 * tomaw sighs
2008-04-15 14:32 < Yuyudevil> how sweet
2008-04-15 14:34 * Golbez giggles madly, having just played Wipeout 2097 on an emualtor :D i didn't know PS1 emulation had advanced this far
2008-04-15 14:36 < ST47> ...
2008-04-15 14:37 < Golbez> ST47- what
2008-04-15 14:38 < nicho> It won't let me edit it.
2008-04-15 14:38 < Golbez> nicho- which article?
2008-04-15 14:38 < nicho> pwn
2008-04-15 14:39 < gwern> these foundation-l threads are odd
2008-04-15 14:39 < Golbez> yes, it's protected from non-registered users
2008-04-15 14:39 < gwern> moeller is stonewalling for all he's worth about the new licenses and the wiki creation ban
2008-04-15 14:39 < Golbez> you'll either have to make an account and wait four days, or submit an edit request on the talk page, or tell us what you want done and we'll see. :)
2008-04-15 14:39 < Golbez> gwern- link?
2008-04-15 14:39 < Golbez> i know nothing about that but i enjoy some good moeller drama now and then
2008-04-15 14:40 < gwern> Golbez: dude, I'm reading my mbox through Mutt offline. I have no link for you
2008-04-15 14:40 < Golbez> o
2008-04-15 14:40 < Golbez> :(
2008-04-15 14:40 < nicho> Well, pwn came from AOL.
2008-04-15 14:40 < nicho> Actually.
2008-04-15 14:40 < nicho> Back in the day, in the chat rooms, if you were the first in, you could have "pwner" status.
2008-04-15 14:40 < Golbez> do you have a source for this?
2008-04-15 14:40 < The359> do you have any documents that say that?
2008-04-15 14:41 < nicho> Only if you paid 24.95 a month, not if you was just on the aim version.
2008-04-15 14:41 < nicho> No. I just have knowledge of what happened when I was a kid, on AOL, in chat rooms.
2008-04-15 14:41 < nicho> :P
2008-04-15 14:41 < The359> Doesn't work that way
2008-04-15 14:41 < Golbez> Sorry, that doesn't work for us. :/ Because, in that case, I could come along and say, "you're wrong", and we'd have no way of determining who is right.
2008-04-15 14:42 * gwern finds that unlikely. I accept the philology that traces it back to a late '80s early '90s corruption of 'own' in the cracker community, and I don't recall AOL figuring in that scenario - only usenet
2008-04-15 14:42 < Golbez> Unless we have a secondary source that we can cite.
2008-04-15 14:42 < white_gecko> where can i find the changelog irc-channals for the german wikipedia?
2008-04-15 14:42 < nicho> So... my facts are less valid than those that someone else has?
2008-04-15 14:43 < ST47> white_gecko: irc.wikimedia.org channel #de.wikipedia
2008-04-15 14:43 < The359> yes
2008-04-15 14:43 < nicho> How so?
2008-04-15 14:43 < The359> Because we can't verify them as "facts"
2008-04-15 14:43 < white_gecko> thx
2008-04-15 14:43 < The359> we only have your word to go on
2008-04-15 14:43 < nicho> ... How could you verify it if someone went and wrote a document saying that?
2008-04-15 14:43 < The359> Depends what sort of article it is
2008-04-15 14:43 * thecardsmith thought "pwn" was just a "own" typo (p being next to o on QWERTY keyboards), "own" being a gamer thing, and the typo was just lovable. however, again, hear-say
2008-04-15 14:43 < The359> and if it is published
2008-04-15 14:44 < gwern> The359: what? no, 'own' was borrowed by the gamers from the crackers
2008-04-15 14:44 < The359> what?
2008-04-15 14:44 < gwern> y'know, Phrack probably has an article on leet speak somewhere
2008-04-15 14:44 < Golbez> gwern meant thecardsmith, I think =p
2008-04-15 14:44 < The359> wrong person, gwern
2008-04-15 14:45 < gwern> oh. yeah.
2008-04-15 14:46 < nicho> If nothing else, it's valuable to add in to the article, as a notable case of usage.
2008-04-15 14:47 < Golbez> nicho- what if I come along and add "also on AOL you could have the rank of 'elephant'"
2008-04-15 14:47 < The359> It can be added when you find a source
2008-04-15 14:47 < Golbez> I'm not saying you're lying.
2008-04-15 14:47 < Golbez> I'm saying, we can't just have people putting their individual experiences on because they're unverifiable.
2008-04-15 14:47 < The359> especially if they happened many years ago
2008-04-15 14:48 < nicho> That's so far beyond any sort of ridiculous.
2008-04-15 14:48 < Golbez> Why? We should allow individual experiences to be on?
2008-04-15 14:48 * TheWeasel dislikes badly translated content on de.
2008-04-15 14:48 < The359> how many "personnel experiences" do you see in a real encyclopedia, nicho?
2008-04-15 14:48 < Golbez> so if I make an article saying I'm the second coming of Jesus Christ, that should be allowed?
2008-04-15 14:48 < nicho> How many people consider wikipedia to be a "real" encyclopedia?
2008-04-15 14:49 * The359 was going to answer that...
2008-04-15 14:49 < Golbez> well that was a journey in maturity
2008-04-15 14:49 < gwern> 'In magic girl anime, sexual content varies from absent to entirely surreal. One of the strangest treatments is that of Princess Tutu; some characters (like heroine Ahiru) have girlish crushes, some (like Rue) seem to have a more mature interest in boys. And then there is ballet instructor Neko-sensei, who regularly threatens to marry girls who do not behave.'
2008-04-15 14:49 < Golbez> FINE
2008-04-15 14:49 < Golbez> WE DONT WANT YOUR EDITS ANYWAY
2008-04-15 14:49 < Golbez> hmph.
2008-04-15 14:50 * The359 never trusts people who "dont want to register" yet want to request things be added to an article
2008-04-15 14:50 < Ceiling_Cat> MAOR KATZ!
2008-04-15 14:50 < The359> it's never anything of merit
2008-04-15 14:50 < TheWeasel> Well, that makes it easy.
2008-04-15 14:51 < Lycurgus> AKA "lusers"
2008-04-15 14:53 < gwern> One does not simply register to walk into Mordor!
2008-04-15 14:53 < Golbez> lol
2008-04-15 14:53 * TheWeasel teleports into Mordor
2008-04-15 14:53 * The359 walks into Mordor
2008-04-15 14:54 * Messedrocker shoots up Mordor
2008-04-15 14:54 < gwern> 'HOLY SHIT! Everybody's adding photos - hope I don't run out of space till tomorrow morning when I can contact the webhost!' 'well, you are on the front page of reddit now...' 'Then I don't have to worry about disk space, the traffic will kill me anyway?'
2008-04-15 14:54 < TheWeasel> Well, walking into Mordor is fair enough
2008-04-15 14:56 * Ceiling_Cat huggles Messedrocker_Cat
2008-04-15 14:56 < Messedrocker> rong
2008-04-15 14:56 < Ceiling_Cat> MAOR KATZ!
2008-04-15 14:56 < TheWeasel> Bahoo-Jim Dandy to the rescue-bahoo
2008-04-15 14:56 < Messedrocker> I am not a cat
2008-04-15 14:57 < TheWeasel> I am not here... what is here anyway ... isn't here just there without a t?
2008-04-15 14:57 < TheWeasel> </Clinton>
2008-04-15 14:57 < Ceiling_Cat> Messedrocker - how do we know that for sure?
2008-04-15 14:57 < Messedrocker> theweasel is a wiesel without the elie
2008-04-15 14:57 < Ceiling_Cat> Perhaps you are one of them self-hating cats who doesn't want to be a cat
2008-04-15 14:57 < TheWeasel> Eli eli lama
2008-04-15 14:58 < TheWeasel> or whatever that is
2008-04-15 14:59 < TheWeasel> (some old Hebrew I think I read in Ginsberg)
2008-04-15 14:59 < Messedrocker> ceiling cat
2008-04-15 15:01 < Messedrocker> thx
2008-04-15 15:02 < Ceiling_Cat> yes Messedrocker_Cat?
2008-04-15 15:06 < TheWeasel> oh, a colleague http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/funny-pictures-ermine-eats-bread.jpg
2008-04-15 15:21 < Messedrocker> I HAVE COLDNESS
2008-04-15 15:21 < compwhizii> Messedrocker, uh huh. and how does that make you feel?
2008-04-15 15:22 < Messedrocker> well i feel cold
2008-04-15 15:23 < gwern> 'Whittaker tried to estimate the number of new stone spear and arrow heads made each year in modern American. From the circulation total of subscribers to flintknapping newsletters and workshops, and the sale of his own how-to books on the subject he estimated the total number of people making stone-age points today is about 5,000. Some of these are weekend hobbyists, some are academics and some are “pros” selling their creations. Whittaker then ...
2008-04-15 15:23 < compwhizii> uh huh
2008-04-15 15:23 < gwern> ... used surveys and other rough guesses to estimate how many points these fans generate in one year. His astounding guestimate is 1.5 million. '
2008-04-15 15:24 < OverlordQ> now we just need
2008-04-15 15:24 < gwern> http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2007/02/surprising_cont.php
2008-04-15 15:24 < OverlordQ> some fuzzy elephants to hunt
2008-04-15 15:26 < gwern> 'In my own travels around the world I was often struck by how resilient ancient technologies were, how they were first choices where power and modern resources were scarce. It seemed to me as if no technologies ever disappeared. I was challenged on this conclusion by a highly regarded historian of technology who told me without thinking, "Look, they don't make steam-powered automobiles anymore." Well, within a few clicks on Google I very quickly ...
2008-04-15 15:26 < [Liempt]> !join
2008-04-15 15:26 < gwern> ... located folks who are making BRAND NEW parts for Stanley steam-powered cars. Nice shiny copper values, pistons, whatever you need. With enough money you could put together an entirely new steam-power car. And of course thousand of hobbyists are still bolting together steam powered vehicles, and hundreds of more are keeping old ones running. Steam-power is very much an intact, though uncommon, species of technology.'
2008-04-15 15:29 < gwern> 'However in every system that I have seen where anonymity becomes common, the system fails. Communities infected with anonymity will either collapse, or shift the anonymous to pseudo-anonymous, as in eBay, where you have a traceable identity behind an invented nickname. Or voting, where you can authenticate an identity without tagging it to a vote. ' <-- hee hee. someone has never visited the *chans, I see
2008-04-15 15:35 < quanticle> gwern: Well, I don't think that the Stanley steam powered car example is representative. Old tech (especially old transistorized tech.) does die out. If it didn't, the Defense Department wouldn't have to worry about its chips becoming obsolete before the first ship/plane/tank/whatever rolls off the assembly line.
2008-04-15 15:35 < quanticle> gwern: Also, its a lot easier to machine a valve than it is to fabricate an integrated circuit.
2008-04-15 15:37 < Ceiling_Cat> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Songs_dealing_with_abortion
2008-04-15 15:37 < Ceiling_Cat> O.o
2008-04-15 15:37 < The359> awesome
2008-04-15 15:37 < quanticle> Ceiling_Cat: Every page must be categorized.
2008-04-15 15:37 < Ceiling_Cat> I don't see the 'abortion song' listed
2008-04-15 15:38 < Ceiling_Cat> A is for the anger, of knowing you're knocked up
2008-04-15 15:38 < Ceiling_Cat> B is for the bad things that come from having kids
2008-04-15 15:38 < quanticle> Ceiling_Cat: {{sofixit}}
2008-04-15 15:38 < Ceiling_Cat> O is for the ooohs that you'll endure
2008-04-15 15:38 < Ceiling_Cat> R is for the right thing to do
2008-04-15 15:41 < Messedrocker> T is for Titties, because Titties are Fun
2008-04-15 15:41 < Messedrocker> I is for the Ionosphere, because the Ionosphere is cool
2008-04-15 15:41 < Messedrocker> O is for O'Bortion -- it's what they have in Ireland
2008-04-15 15:42 < Messedrocker> N is for a word, the word that rhymes with "trigger"
2008-04-15 15:47 < Ceiling_Cat> Messedrocker - T is for the third trimester, the best time to abort
2008-04-15 15:48 < Messedrocker> oh fuckin a. so many new characters
2008-04-15 15:48 * Messedrocker selects Solid Snake
2008-04-15 15:50 < Golbez> Messedrocker- i unlocked luigi last night~
2008-04-15 15:50 < Golbez> and falco!
2008-04-15 15:50 < Messedrocker> i unlocked him a while ago. i like his final smash
2008-04-15 15:50 < Messedrocker> apparently his final smash consists of him dropping acid
2008-04-15 15:50 < Golbez> haven't seen it yet
2008-04-15 15:50 < Golbez> i prefer him to Mario though
2008-04-15 15:51 < Golbez> My preferred characters right now, though, are Link and Captain Falcon
2008-04-15 15:52 < Ceiling_Cat> http://xkcd.com/410/
2008-04-15 15:52 * Ceiling_Cat snickers
2008-04-15 15:53 < Messedrocker> my math teacher iirc has a printout from XKCD by her desk
2008-04-15 15:53 < Golbez> I knew a law professor who had a Dilbert comic on his door.
2008-04-15 15:54 < Golbez> Dogbert: I've been trying to figure out what's the best way to take over the world: Start a religion or build an army.
2008-04-15 15:54 < Golbez> Dilbert: Well, which would have the lower body count?
2008-04-15 15:54 < Golbez> Dogbert: I'll make a spreadsheet!
2008-04-15 15:54 < Golbez> Dilbert: Why do you only have law students count as 2/10ths of a person?
2008-04-15 15:54 < Golbez> Dogbert: They don't drop to zero til they pass the bar.
2008-04-15 16:01 < Messedrocker> lol
2008-04-15 16:01 < Messedrocker> i beat giant wario in 11 seconds
2008-04-15 16:04 < Messedrocker> holy crap, 52300 points for a single level
2008-04-15 16:10 * TheWeasel is a law student.
2008-04-15 16:11 * Mm40 likes law
2008-04-15 16:12 * Mm40 wants 2 be secretary of state
2008-04-15 16:12 < TheWeasel> not necessarily a lawyerly position
2008-04-15 16:12 < Mm40> My dad is a corporate lawyer
2008-04-15 16:12 < TheWeasel> though it makes it more effective I guess
2008-04-15 16:14 < Messedrocker> fighting Team King Dedede is like being in an orgy with nothing but fat chicks
2008-04-15 16:20 < cctoide> It would rock to be called something like Samuel Q. Logan
2008-04-15 16:24 * Ceiling_Cat huggles Messedrocker
2008-04-15 16:25 * Messedrocker was close to not having to use a continue :(
2008-04-15 16:26 < The359> fail
2008-04-15 16:32 < The359> http://www.break.com/index/mario-theme-played-with-rc-car-and-bottles.html FFS
2008-04-15 17:03 < compwhizii> all of the dumps are failing
2008-04-15 17:04 < melani9> www.thePHPportal.tk I need help, I can't see my website! SQL error
2008-04-15 17:04 < compwhizii> melani9, wrong place dude
2008-04-15 17:04 < wimt> melani9, stop it please
2008-04-15 17:05 < melani9> thanks
2008-04-15 17:05 < melani9> I was wrong
2008-04-15 17:05 < melani9> sorry
2008-04-15 17:05 < melani9> keep on wikiing
2008-04-15 17:05 < compwhizii> 9.9
2008-04-15 17:05 < compwhizii> the hell?
2008-04-15 17:05 < compwhizii> wimt, is he a constant prob?
2008-04-15 17:06 < wimt> compwhizii, not anymore - k-lined :-)
2008-04-15 17:06 < compwhizii> :D
2008-04-15 17:06 < compwhizii> hey Monobi
2008-04-15 17:06 < Monobi> O hai
2008-04-15 17:07 < compwhizii> Does this look bad? http://download.wikimedia.org/backup-index.html
2008-04-15 17:07 < wimt> Doesn't look ideal ;-)
2008-04-15 17:09 < FruFru> (join #wikipedia-de
2008-04-15 17:11 < compwhizii> wimt, i mean all the compelete dumps failed so....
2008-04-15 17:11 < compwhizii> more wtf then not ideal ;)
2008-04-15 17:11 < wimt> Yeah, not great. I imagine they'll try it again.
2008-04-15 17:11 < compwhizii> I hope so :)
2008-04-15 17:12 < compwhizii> Cool,
2008-04-15 17:12 < compwhizii> No one has told my bot off yet :D
2008-04-15 17:18 < Messedrocker> you know what nintendo needs to do for their next console?
2008-04-15 17:18 < Messedrocker> have a built-in hard drive
2008-04-15 17:19 < Messedrocker> so that downloadable games don't have to be friggin 40 megabytes
2008-04-15 17:25 < geniice> with flah memory becomeing more of an option they probably will
2008-04-15 17:29 < Alkivar> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ONJfp95yoE <-- cat playing a theremin
2008-04-15 17:57 * Ceiling_Cat enjoys a good huggling
2008-04-15 18:00 * Doc_glasgow wonders what Ceiling_Cat makes of a *BAD* huggling
2008-04-15 18:01 * Mm40 wonders the same thing as Doc_glasgow
2008-04-15 18:02 < geniice> Um guys
2008-04-15 18:02 < geniice> could probably do with wider involvement at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Image_placeholders
2008-04-15 18:05 < Mm40> hahahahahahaha
2008-04-15 18:05 < Alkivar> ????)
2008-04-15 18:07 < The359> get rid of them all, geniice
2008-04-15 18:07 < geniice> The359 um no
2008-04-15 18:07 < Cyrius> add them everywhere!
2008-04-15 18:07 < geniice> Cyrius living people only
2008-04-15 18:07 < The359> um no?
2008-04-15 18:07 < The359> they're useless
2008-04-15 18:07 < The359> and unattractive
2008-04-15 18:07 < geniice> The359 they work
2008-04-15 18:07 < The359> we look like the IMDb
2008-04-15 18:07 < The359> barely
2008-04-15 18:08 < The359> from what I'm reading there, it's only gained 400 to 500 pictures
2008-04-15 18:08 < geniice> The359> no nho don't make US look like IMDb been repeatly told they look amaturish and IMDb are professional
2008-04-15 18:08 < geniice> The359 at the moment
2008-04-15 18:08 < geniice> The359 the number deployed has only gone up fairly recently
2008-04-15 18:08 < The359> IMDb isn't professional at all
2008-04-15 18:09 < The359> I don't care if it goes up
2008-04-15 18:09 < The359> there's better methods to get pictures
2008-04-15 18:09 < The359> without detracting the rest of the articles
2008-04-15 18:09 < geniice> The359 Amazon.com would object to that claim
2008-04-15 18:09 < The359> we're not Amazon.com
2008-04-15 18:09 < The359> so that's moot
2008-04-15 18:09 < geniice> The359 however these methods are not mutaly exculsice
2008-04-15 18:10 < geniice> The359 IMDb is Amazon.com however
2008-04-15 18:10 < The359> we're not IMDb.com either
2008-04-15 18:10 < The359> quite frankly the entire thing smells of a ripoff of IMDb
2008-04-15 18:10 < Cyrius> so what?
2008-04-15 18:10 < The359> so it looks stupid
2008-04-15 18:11 < The359> We don't stick "Please add more text to this article!" on every page
2008-04-15 18:11 < Cyrius> we stick that on quite a few pages
2008-04-15 18:11 < geniice> The359 no because some articles have enough text
2008-04-15 18:11 < geniice> The359 article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
2008-04-15 18:12 < The359> I said every page
2008-04-15 18:12 < The359> The problem is we're putting the picture template on full articles
2008-04-15 18:12 < geniice> The359 we don't have image requests on every page
2008-04-15 18:12 < geniice> The359 not if they have images
2008-04-15 18:12 < The359> Is it not the aim to put it on every biography that lacks an image?
2008-04-15 18:12 < Ceiling_Cat> I have a unix question
2008-04-15 18:12 < geniice> The359 no
2008-04-15 18:12 < geniice> The359 living bios maybe
2008-04-15 18:13 < The359> well that's stupid
2008-04-15 18:13 < Ceiling_Cat> if a program depends on an environmental variable, and that variable changes while the program is running, will the program notice?
2008-04-15 18:13 < geniice> The359 why?
2008-04-15 18:13 < The359> should we put a "No free image" placeholder on every automotive article?
2008-04-15 18:13 < The359> How about every technology article?
2008-04-15 18:13 < The359> Why are biographies more important when it comes to a picture?
2008-04-15 18:14 < geniice> The359 because they are the things that people might have pics of that we have the hardest time getting
2008-04-15 18:14 < The359> So?
2008-04-15 18:14 < The359> Pictures are great in general
2008-04-15 18:14 < The359> so why not put templates on everything that we could get a picture of
2008-04-15 18:14 < geniice> The359 so we need to deploy our resources in that dirrection
2008-04-15 18:14 < The359> no, we don't
2008-04-15 18:14 < The359> because we don't need templates like that
2008-04-15 18:14 < The359> we already have talk page templates requesting pictures
2008-04-15 18:14 < The359> they're unobtrusive
2008-04-15 18:15 < geniice> The359 strangely readers don't look at the talk page much
2008-04-15 18:15 * The359 shrug
2008-04-15 18:15 < The359> Better than putting it all over the article space
2008-04-15 18:15 < geniice> The359 putting it in the article space works
2008-04-15 18:15 < The359> Not worth it
2008-04-15 18:15 < The359> Putting them on the talk pages has worked as well
2008-04-15 18:16 < geniice> The359 evicences
2008-04-15 18:16 < geniice> The359 evidences?
2008-04-15 18:16 < The359> I don't have any hard numbers, but I think you'd have to be a bit out of it to think that someone has never added a picture based on a request
2008-04-15 18:16 < gwern> 'Superman represents hope and indefatigable strength, and any attempt to complicate these issues would no longer make him Superman. By definition, Superman has to be boring and morally absolute because if he isn't, he ain't Superman. I mean, in Kingdom Come he's momentarily called to task for getting angry at the UN and threatening to kill the world leaders for killing Captain Marvel, but he's talked down from doing anything irrational within, like, ...
2008-04-15 18:16 < gwern> ... two pages of initially getting the idea to fuck up the United Nations. Heck, Superman's arc in Kingdom Come isn't even anything deeper than "America has forgotten me and I them, and we need to restore faith in one another." Wow – real interesting. While you're doing that, Batman will be over in the corner, *contemplating suicide*.'
2008-04-15 18:17 < geniice> The359 sure but that is mostly buildings and the like things that stay still. People are more of a problem