freenode #wikipedia

2008-04-15 18:17 < The359> even it most of the time it ends up being copyrighted pictures we have to delete
2008-04-15 18:17 < The359> So people are a problem
2008-04-15 18:17 < The359> Accept it and move on
2008-04-15 18:17 < geniice> The359 systems allows filtering out of copyvios
2008-04-15 18:18 * The359 shrug
2008-04-15 18:18 < Working_Cat> wow this place is alive. screenful of stuff in 5 mins
2008-04-15 18:18 < The359> a few hundred pictures is hardly a victory
2008-04-15 18:18 < The359> it's small change compared to how shitty it makes the articles look, quite frankly
2008-04-15 18:18 * Working_Cat huggles Ceiling_Cat
2008-04-15 18:18 < geniice> The359 main upload system is really bad at filtering for copyvios. You going to shut down that?
2008-04-15 18:18 * Ceiling_Cat huggles Working_Cat
2008-04-15 18:18 < The359> uh, no? Because the upload system isn't in article space?
2008-04-15 18:18 < geniice> The359 a few hundread pictures so far there will be more
2008-04-15 18:18 < Working_Cat> for a change its huggles. otherwise Ceiling_Cat apparently gets smacked around
2008-04-15 18:19 < The359> There will be more even if we don't have the placeholders, geniice
2008-04-15 18:19 * Ceiling_Cat shaves Working_Cat, dunks him in a vat of chocolate syrup, throws the now-sticky pussy at The359
2008-04-15 18:19 < geniice> The359 you tried to use copyvios as a reason to shut stuff down
2008-04-15 18:19 < The359> I uploaded pictures to articles before all this placeholder shit showed up
2008-04-15 18:19 * Working_Cat smacks Ceiling_Cat for the stats
2008-04-15 18:19 < The359> no, I pointed out copyvios as an added reason
2008-04-15 18:19 < geniice> The359 you did but you are not a reader. How many photos of people have you uploaded in the last year
2008-04-15 18:19 < The359> My main reason is that it doesn't belong in the article space
2008-04-15 18:19 * Working_Cat smacks Ceiling_Cat for the way he treats pussies
2008-04-15 18:20 < The359> a dozen or so, geniice
2008-04-15 18:20 * Working_Cat smacks Ceiling_Cat
2008-04-15 18:20 < geniice> The359 a reason that can equaly aplied to the main upload system
2008-04-15 18:20 < Working_Cat> that was just like that :D
2008-04-15 18:20 < The359> the upload system isn't on the article space?
2008-04-15 18:20 < geniice> The359 no copyvios
2008-04-15 18:20 < The359> I don't care about copyvios
2008-04-15 18:20 < gwern> Oh my god. I just realized: my entire family is made of meat!
2008-04-15 18:20 < The359> I care about these stupid placeholders
2008-04-15 18:21 < gwern> what the hell? how can we be some stinking fetid burbling messy meat? It just doesn't make sense
2008-04-15 18:21 < geniice> The359 so you admit to useing false reasons to try and get them removed
2008-04-15 18:21 < The359> uh, no?
2008-04-15 18:21 < geniice> The359 you gave copyvios as a reason to remove them then admited you didn't care about copyvios
2008-04-15 18:21 < The359> because they were never the main arguement?
2008-04-15 18:21 < The359> Pay attention, ffs
2008-04-15 18:22 < geniice> The359 you used them as part of your argument
2008-04-15 18:22 < The359> ...and?
2008-04-15 18:22 < geniice> The359 if you didn't care about themm basic intelical integrity wouldn't allow you to do that
2008-04-15 18:22 < gwern> [[Manley Power]] <-- now that is a masculine nam
2008-04-15 18:22 < gwern> *name
2008-04-15 18:23 < The359> Are you actually going to debate the placeholders, or are you just going to jerk off over semantics, geniice?
2008-04-15 18:23 < gwern> semantics are everything
2008-04-15 18:23 < gwern> syntax is nothing
2008-04-15 18:24 < geniice> The359 I don't know am I debateing with a rational actor?
2008-04-15 18:24 < The359> I don't know what the fuck you're debating
2008-04-15 18:24 < The359> Besides waving around some magic number of 400 or so
2008-04-15 18:24 < The359> as if it makes up for the complete shittiness in the articles
2008-04-15 18:24 < gwern> geniice: if you two can't come to agreement, that demonstrates at least one of you is irrational (per Aumann's agreement theorems)
2008-04-15 18:24 < Working_Cat> which article?
2008-04-15 18:25 < The359> The "Do you have an image of this person?" placeholder debate, Working_Cat
2008-04-15 18:25 < geniice> The359 "complete shittiness" you are free to design a better image
2008-04-15 18:25 < The359> That's now in a couple thousand articles
2008-04-15 18:25 < The359> I don't want an image used at all, geniice, period
2008-04-15 18:25 < geniice> gwern no it is posible we have acess to a different set of data
2008-04-15 18:25 < gwern> geniice: nope. aumann's and later results cover that
2008-04-15 18:25 < geniice> The359 our standard stub notices have images in
2008-04-15 18:25 < Working_Cat> thanks The359, is it the "female one is sexist" debate?
2008-04-15 18:25 < The359> small ones
2008-04-15 18:25 < The359> no
2008-04-15 18:26 < The359> the one about whether they should be used at all, Working_Cat
2008-04-15 18:26 < gwern> (if you two are rational bayesians, you don't even need to know the other's data set, actually)
2008-04-15 18:26 < geniice> The359 so not images per se but size issues
2008-04-15 18:26 < The359> The stub noticies are small and at the bottom of the article
2008-04-15 18:26 < gwern> (just exchanging priors will be enough to come to agreement)
2008-04-15 18:26 < geniice> gwern what if one of the beings dies halfway through
2008-04-15 18:26 < The359> and the images are usually associated with the subject matter
2008-04-15 18:26 < Working_Cat> gwern: awesome analysis. but sadly, useless when most humans are involved.
2008-04-15 18:26 < geniice> The359 but the expand notices are big and at the top
2008-04-15 18:27 < The359> ok, whatever, I don't care about expand notices?
2008-04-15 18:27 < gwern> Working_Cat: yeah, but it establishs a normative goal, which is a good start
2008-04-15 18:27 < The359> they shouldn't be used unless an article is in dire need of attention anyway
2008-04-15 18:27 < The359> Your placeholders are on a shitload of articles
2008-04-15 18:27 < gwern> geniice: how do you die halfway through transmitting a prior? it's just a real number
2008-04-15 18:28 < Working_Cat> gwern: real numbers are not necessarily atomic
2008-04-15 18:28 < Working_Cat> esp if transmitted in binary :P
2008-04-15 18:28 < geniice> The359 so you have no problems with banner messages across the top of the article with images in but greyed out images taking up rather less space are a problem
2008-04-15 18:28 < TheWeasel> What will the Delta/NWA merger company be called?
2008-04-15 18:28 < gwern> Working_Cat: no, but it's trivial to layer on a coding scheme such that the other entity only gets any information if the entire transaction finishes
2008-04-15 18:28 < Mike_H> TheWeasel: I got offered another job!
2008-04-15 18:29 < The359> we're an encyclopedia
2008-04-15 18:29 < Working_Cat> ( gwern: what say, wanna start a parallel non-bayesian debate? )
2008-04-15 18:29 < The359> Text is more important than photographs in most instances
2008-04-15 18:29 < TheWeasel> not quite the answer to my question, but congratulations :-)
2008-04-15 18:29 < Mike_H> I'd be writing for the wire service over 2,200 radio stations in the US use for news and traffic updates.
2008-04-15 18:29 < Mike_H> http://www.metronetworks.com/
2008-04-15 18:29 < Mike_H> My work would be heard all over the country.
2008-04-15 18:29 < The359> Banner messages requesting most text are fine since A) they are not used on all articles and B) they are only used when necessary
2008-04-15 18:29 < Mike_H> :DDD
2008-04-15 18:29 < TheWeasel> nice
2008-04-15 18:29 < TheWeasel> :-)
2008-04-15 18:29 < TheWeasel> haha
2008-04-15 18:29 < Working_Cat> Mike_H: awesome!
2008-04-15 18:29 < gwern> Working_Cat: not particularly, unless you have something in particular to discuss
2008-04-15 18:29 < geniice> The359 and technicaly the expand template may be placed on any article less than about 32 K in size
2008-04-15 18:30 < Working_Cat> Mike_H: also, you'll be fried if you screw up/slack off :D
2008-04-15 18:30 < The359> may be but isn't
2008-04-15 18:30 < The359> a simple stub template should be used
2008-04-15 18:30 < Working_Cat> gwern: that thing you talked about is not trivial
2008-04-15 18:30 < The359> According to you, placeholders should be placed on the biography of every living person, geniice
2008-04-15 18:30 < geniice> The359 no you can't use both at once expand genealy assumes post stub
2008-04-15 18:30 < geniice> The359 no
2008-04-15 18:30 < The359> Big diffence between "mandatory" placeholders and optional templates used at an editors discretion
2008-04-15 18:31 < geniice> The359 placeholders are not mandatory can't force people to add them to articles
2008-04-15 18:31 < The359> but you believe they should be used on all biographies
2008-04-15 18:31 < gwern> Working_Cat: the coding scheme?
2008-04-15 18:31 < The359> of living people
2008-04-15 18:31 < The359> sounds fairly close to mandatory to me
2008-04-15 18:31 < Working_Cat> why cant we have a bordered rectangle of a different color with exactly same width as the right sidebar and beg someone for an image there?
2008-04-15 18:31 < geniice> The359 and not every living bio I insist on a non zero chance of such a pic existing and really should only be on bios of those who make a reasonable number of public apearences
2008-04-15 18:32 < Working_Cat> gwern: yeah. that.
2008-04-15 18:32 < TheWeasel> okay, so the Delta/NWA company will be called Delta
2008-04-15 18:32 < gwern> Working_Cat: obviously since priors are formalized as reals, not all priors have computable representations, but the ones which do can easily be done atomically
2008-04-15 18:32 < The359> Then again, why don't we have image placeholders on other items, geniice?
2008-04-15 18:32 < Working_Cat> TheWeasel: we know that
2008-04-15 18:32 < TheWeasel> it's a funny time for a merger, now NWA has just modernised its ancient fleet
2008-04-15 18:32 < The359> For things which are generally seen in public but which we don't have images of yet
2008-04-15 18:32 < geniice> The359 we do actualy
2008-04-15 18:33 < Working_Cat> geniice, The359 : how bout the placeholder is NOT on by default, but someone can request for an image and put it in there
2008-04-15 18:33 < The359> Yes
2008-04-15 18:33 < The359> On talk pages
2008-04-15 18:33 < geniice> The359 no on article pages
2008-04-15 18:33 < The359> we have those, Working_Cat
2008-04-15 18:33 < The359> They go on the talk page
2008-04-15 18:33 < gwern> Working_Cat: ie, take the bitstring representing the prior; xor it against 000.... or 111....; send the output, and then send either a '0' or a '1'. if the xor'd string is the only thing received, it's useless
2008-04-15 18:33 < Working_Cat> then whats wrong. end of discussion.
2008-04-15 18:33 < The359> They want it in the article space, Working_Cat
2008-04-15 18:33 < gwern> it needs one more byte to be turnable into something useful
2008-04-15 18:33 < Mike_H> Working_Cat: Guess how I got the job?
2008-04-15 18:33 < geniice> The359 they exist but deployment is not wide since I'm not happy about them being used without a wikiproject takeing responcibilty
2008-04-15 18:33 < Working_Cat> gwern: you do not agree with what I say. Hence you are decidedly proven wrong.
2008-04-15 18:34 < The359> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Reqphoto
2008-04-15 18:34 < Mike_H> I sent a YouTube comment to the guy who runs the service here, without even knowing he runs that or needed someone to write.
2008-04-15 18:34 < Working_Cat> Mike_H: by tapping it?
2008-04-15 18:34 < Mike_H> I saw him on the Nancy Grace show and my comment was basically "wow, she's a big bitch"
2008-04-15 18:34 < The359> why would a WikiProject need to be involved?
2008-04-15 18:34 < Mike_H> and we started talking about our jobs
2008-04-15 18:34 < Mike_H> it was so coincidental
2008-04-15 18:34 < geniice> The359 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_3110
2008-04-15 18:34 < gwern> Working_Cat: hm? no. I wouldn't apply aumman's theorems to myself, since I believe myself irrational
2008-04-15 18:34 < The359> that shit should be deleted too, geniice
2008-04-15 18:34 < Working_Cat> gwern: NOW youre talking :D
2008-04-15 18:35 < geniice> The359 the placeholders need to be looked adter to an extent and I'm not doing it for anything outside living people
2008-04-15 18:35 < gwern> Working_Cat: but I have no cause for belief that you aren't as irrational; by principle of mediocrity you are probably as irrational as myself, so our agreement or disagreement conveys little information for me
2008-04-15 18:35 < Working_Cat> gwern: <generally bitter, borderline rude remark>
2008-04-15 18:35 < The359> they shouldn't be on article space
2008-04-15 18:35 < The359> period
2008-04-15 18:35 < The359> Images are not required for encyclopedia articles
2008-04-15 18:35 < The359> most encyclopedia articles, make that
2008-04-15 18:35 < The359> some really do need images
2008-04-15 18:35 < The359> But biographies don't, quite frankly
2008-04-15 18:35 < gwern> Working_Cat: you are free to contend that I am more rational than I believe, but wouldn't that prove my assessment irrational and thus myself irrational? :)
2008-04-15 18:36 < Working_Cat> gwern: offhanded comment on how you are deviating from the main debate.
2008-04-15 18:36 < geniice> The359 Haveing survived the fair use wars people appear to think differently
2008-04-15 18:36 < Working_Cat> gwern: obscure, not so clever reference to Catch-22
2008-04-15 18:36 < The359> Knowing what someone looks like doesn't really tell you anything about the person
2008-04-15 18:36 < geniice> The359 there is a reason that one of the fair use traps built into the uplaod system is people based
2008-04-15 18:36 < The359> Having a photograph of how a mechnical device works, that's informative
2008-04-15 18:36 < The359> Picture of some celebrity, useless
2008-04-15 18:37 < Working_Cat> Mike_H: i got myself an interview that way :D
2008-04-15 18:37 < geniice> The359 tell that to all the teen girls uploading copyvios of zac effron
2008-04-15 18:37 < The359> why would I care about people uploading copyvios?
2008-04-15 18:37 < geniice> The359 people identify people by appearence
2008-04-15 18:37 < Working_Cat> but i got this job offer before the interview materialized.
2008-04-15 18:37 < The359> then use an external link, geniice
2008-04-15 18:37 < geniice> The359 zac effron's sucess is to an extent at least due to apearence
2008-04-15 18:38 < The359> only for those that think that way
2008-04-15 18:38 < The359> still doesn't make it necessary to include a picture in an Encyclopedia
2008-04-15 18:38 < The359> It's not like adding a picture suddenly makes everyone go "Oh, I get it"
2008-04-15 18:39 < geniice> The359 in the case of models yes it does
2008-04-15 18:39 < Working_Cat> Mike_H: i was discussing programming languages and methodologies with some guy on IRC, and he said he wished that the guys he was interviewing atleast had SOME knowledge of linux before putting it on their resumes
2008-04-15 18:39 < geniice> and rather a lot of actors
2008-04-15 18:39 < The359> No, it doesn't geniice
2008-04-15 18:39 < The359> unless you think everyone thinks he looks good
2008-04-15 18:40 < The359> it's not
2008-04-15 18:40 < Working_Cat> IMO, every notable person in front of the camera should have a pic
2008-04-15 18:41 < geniice> The359 Peter Crouch's appearence is ah somewhat significant
2008-04-15 18:41 < The359> unless it's something like the elephent man, then that should have the help of an image
2008-04-15 18:41 < The359> But every living person
2008-04-15 18:41 < The359> no
2008-04-15 18:41 < The359> not even close
2008-04-15 18:42 < The359> And if we want pictures for people like an elephent man
2008-04-15 18:42 < The359> put it on the talk page
2008-04-15 18:42 < geniice> The359 readers don't look at the talk page
2008-04-15 18:42 < Working_Cat> ok can we discuss something off-topic now?
2008-04-15 18:43 < The359> the type of reader who is going to take the time to upload an image
2008-04-15 18:43 < The359> is likely to either read a talk page
2008-04-15 18:44 < The359> or is going to upload their image regardless of whether the template is there or not
2008-04-15 18:44 < The359> you have 400-500 people who have uploaded pictures using the placeholder, but how many of them did so merely because of the placeholder
2008-04-15 18:44 < The359> How many just came to Wikipedia?
2008-04-15 18:44 < geniice> The359 not really we know from the useability the german mob did that new users can't figure out how to upload
2008-04-15 18:44 < The359> How many just came across images?
2008-04-15 18:44 < geniice> The359 for most it was first edit
2008-04-15 18:45 < The359> still a good chunk of your 400-500 aren't because of the placeholders themselves
2008-04-15 18:46 < geniice> The359 uploaded via the placeholder upload system and of people who have placeholder's in their articles
2008-04-15 18:46 < The359> upload via that system doesn't mean they decided to do it because of the placeholder
2008-04-15 18:46 < The359> It is, quite frankly, a shortcut
2008-04-15 18:46 < ijustam> so uh
2008-04-15 18:46 < ijustam> why would a ref tag be followed by a {{fact}} ?
2008-04-15 18:47 < ijustam> doesnt that seem a tad.. contradictory?
2008-04-15 18:47 < The359> either someone forgot to remove the fact tag
2008-04-15 18:47 < The359> or someone believes the reference is questionable and put the wrong template on
2008-04-15 18:48 < geniice> The359 realiseing it is a shortcut requires quite knowlage of our upload system (and in any case it isn't really)
2008-04-15 18:48 < ijustam> the latter is plausible
2008-04-15 18:48 < ijustam> considering the ref is from about.com
2008-04-15 18:48 < The359> that's assuming, geniice
2008-04-15 18:49 * The359 is done with this
2008-04-15 18:49 < The359> Begone with the stupid templates
2008-04-15 18:49 * The359 has other things to do
2008-04-15 18:49 < geniice> Stub notices are not going anywhere
2008-04-15 18:49 < The359> good
2008-04-15 18:50 < geniice> The359 but they are templates
2008-04-15 18:50 < geniice> placeholder images are not templates
2008-04-15 18:51 < Working_Cat> do either of you really have the power to enforce a policy IF this debate ever does reach a consensus?
2008-04-15 18:51 < Working_Cat> just curious
2008-04-15 18:51 < Wikiacc> Working_Cat: if there's a consensus, anyone can, really
2008-04-15 18:51 < Working_Cat> i meant between the 2 of these
2008-04-15 18:51 < The359> through my discussion with one of my WikiProjects, our consensus was to remove it from all Formula One driver articles
2008-04-15 18:51 < Working_Cat> ok
2008-04-15 18:53 < geniice> Because wikiprojects blantaly violateing WP:OWN is becomeing kinda popular this season
2008-04-15 18:53 < Wikiacc> geniice: is it? how so
2008-04-15 18:54 < geniice> Wikiacc wikiprojects do not own articles in any given so cannot set style guides
2008-04-15 18:54 < The359> ....like the Living Persons WikiProject?
2008-04-15 18:54 < Wikiacc> geniice: well style guides for certain types of articles are good ideas, generally, for consistency
2008-04-15 18:54 < The359> considering the WikiProject F1 created the drive infobox template
2008-04-15 18:55 < The359> I'm pretty sure that falls under style guidelines
2008-04-15 18:55 < geniice> The359 So? You don't own it
2008-04-15 18:55 < The359> neither does WP:BLP
2008-04-15 18:58 < geniice> WLP is policy wikiprojects are not
2008-04-15 18:58 < geniice> incerdentaly what are you planning to do about Image:Nocover.png?
2008-04-15 18:58 < Wikiacc> geniice: they're not policy, they're guildelines/recommendation
2008-04-15 18:58 < Wikiacc> s
2008-04-15 18:58 < The359> erm, policy? I thought you yourself said that the use of the Placeholder was not going to be mandatory
2008-04-15 18:59 < geniice> it isn't
2008-04-15 18:59 < The359> then it's not policy to have the placeholder there
2008-04-15 18:59 < geniice> WP:BLP is policy however
2008-04-15 18:59 < The359> so other WikiProjects are free to do away with it
2008-04-15 18:59 < geniice> no
2008-04-15 18:59 < The359> yes
2008-04-15 18:59 < The359> If it's not policy
2008-04-15 18:59 < The359> we can remove it
2008-04-15 18:59 < geniice> on individual article basis yes
2008-04-15 19:00 < The359> we chose all F1 driver articles
2008-04-15 19:00 * The359 would do away with Nocover.png as well
2008-04-15 19:00 < The359> It doesn't even request a picture
2008-04-15 19:00 < geniice> I dare you to say that onwiki
2008-04-15 19:00 < The359> Why the fuck would I not?
2008-04-15 19:01 * Wikiacc laughs
2008-04-15 19:01 < The359> Something wrong with my opinion?
2008-04-15 19:01 < geniice> The359 try it and find out
2008-04-15 19:01 * Reedy gets the fire extinguisher
2008-04-15 19:01 < Working_Cat> Reedy: nah. hold it.
2008-04-15 19:02 < The359> Why would I not, geniice?
2008-04-15 19:02 < The359> I'm entitled to think it should be done away with
2008-04-15 19:02 < geniice> I don't know why you haven't
2008-04-15 19:02 < The359> I don't care enough to bring it up
2008-04-15 19:02 < The359> let alone know a proper area of discussion for it
2008-04-15 19:03 < The359> I edit my region of Wikipedia, if other groups want to do silly shit, whatever, Wikipedia's too large to get involved in every thing that I feel is wrong
2008-04-15 19:03 < Cream> hi The359 :)
2008-04-15 19:03 * Working_Cat creams Cream
2008-04-15 19:03 * Cream sploshes on Working_Cat
2008-04-15 19:04 * Working_Cat licks
2008-04-15 19:04 < Working_Cat> Fennec: whats the stat site again?
2008-04-15 19:07 < geniice> The359 excuses excuses
2008-04-15 19:07 < Working_Cat> heh Cream, we seem to have sploshed on an hour long debate
2008-04-15 19:07 < Working_Cat> DAMN
2008-04-15 19:07 < Working_Cat> we didnt
2008-04-15 19:08 < Cream> lol
2008-04-15 19:08 < geniice> Working_Cat well what's your opinion?
2008-04-15 19:09 < geniice> The359 no matter I've raised the issue anyway
2008-04-15 19:09 * TheWeasel knows almost no late Lennon pictures
2008-04-15 19:10 * TheWeasel tries to find one
2008-04-15 19:10 < Working_Cat> i dont know, but you guys seem to have solved every other major issue with Wiki to have an hour long debate on whether there should be a pic or not.
2008-04-15 19:10 * cremepuff222 tells Cream to /nick kreme
2008-04-15 19:10 < Working_Cat> either that or you need to inform me why its so important
2008-04-15 19:11 < Working_Cat> cremepuff222: nah, that interferes with tab completing Krimpet
2008-04-15 19:11 < cremepuff222> Hrm.
2008-04-15 19:11 * TheWeasel thought for a moment that referred to him
2008-04-15 19:11 < Working_Cat> he changed?
2008-04-15 19:11 < Working_Cat> damn
2008-04-15 19:11 < cremepuff222> I'll just remove cream from my watchlist.
2008-04-15 19:11 < cremepuff222> pinglist
2008-04-15 19:11 < Working_Cat> hehe you get buzzed huh?
2008-04-15 19:11 < Working_Cat> Creme de la crop?
2008-04-15 19:11 < cremepuff222> Well I get angry red channel tabs. :-)
2008-04-15 19:11 < Working_Cat> cream of mushroom?
2008-04-15 19:11 < Working_Cat> lol
2008-04-15 19:11 * TheWeasel tries to find a Lennon photo from, say, 1979
2008-04-15 19:12 < Kreme> TheWeasel, would you stay a night in the same room that Lennon did in Montreal Bed-in?
2008-04-15 19:12 < TheWeasel> I don't care enough for his type of political activism to consider that.
2008-04-15 19:13 < Kreme> well, the room he did his bed-in at the Queen Elizabeth hotel in Montreal is one of the most expensive hotel rooms in montreal
2008-04-15 19:13 < TheWeasel> I'm sure.
2008-04-15 19:13 < TheWeasel> That's a PR dream.
2008-04-15 19:16 < Working_Cat> Dreme de la dream?
2008-04-15 19:16 < TheWeasel> alright, seem to have found one
2008-04-15 19:18 < geniice> Working_Cat because the image is in about 50K articles
2008-04-15 19:18 < Working_Cat> no. but why is it an issue?
2008-04-15 19:19 < geniice> Working_Cat because some people don't want them to be in any articles
2008-04-15 19:19 < Working_Cat> well... again.. why.
2008-04-15 19:20 < Working_Cat> geniice: oh i should tell you though, i have no voice/leverage/whatever. Any effort you spend trying to explain to me why it should matter will probably be a waste.
2008-04-15 19:20 < Cream> I need admin advice
2008-04-15 19:21 < geniice> Working_Cat> why can be found spread across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Image_placeholders
2008-04-15 19:21 < Working_Cat> Cream: pray my child. God is the superadmin.
2008-04-15 19:21 < geniice> Cream> on what?
2008-04-15 19:21 < geniice> Working_Cat broadly speaking people thinks it makes articles look less nice
2008-04-15 19:22 < Cream> sockpuppetry
2008-04-15 19:22 < geniice> Cream um yes what about it?
2008-04-15 19:22 < Working_Cat> Cream: My child, we are all but puppets in His hands. Accept it, and all will be revealed.
2008-04-15 19:22 < Cream> hold on
2008-04-15 19:23 < Ceiling_Cat> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU PEOPLE
2008-04-15 19:24 < Working_Cat> Cream: Yes, patience, persistence, faith... those are the marks of a good noble man.
2008-04-15 19:24 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat ?
2008-04-15 19:24 < Working_Cat> Ceiling_Cat: i have a Q too... can you please not shout? also, can you please stop shaving me?
2008-04-15 19:24 < Ceiling_Cat> Can anyone concieve of a scenario in which mandated net neutrality hurts wikipedia and/or the WMF?
2008-04-15 19:24 < Working_Cat> whats a mandated net neutrality?
2008-04-15 19:24 < TheWeasel> When the tubes get improperly filled...
2008-04-15 19:25 < TheWeasel> it hurts NFP projects by definition.
2008-04-15 19:25 < Working_Cat> TheWeasel: thanks. that was very explanatory.
2008-04-15 19:25 < Cream> okay
2008-04-15 19:25 < Ceiling_Cat> Working_Cat - uh, long story short -- a neutral network is one in which the network providers (ISPs) transit data in the same way regardless of who sent it, or what protocol it uses
2008-04-15 19:25 < Cream> I choose you Ceiling_Cat :)
2008-04-15 19:25 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat loads
2008-04-15 19:25 < Ceiling_Cat> ISPs want to start charging some people more (google, yahoo) or else their traffic gets degraded
2008-04-15 19:26 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat obvious we won't be able to pay for the better service
2008-04-15 19:26 < Working_Cat> those ********
2008-04-15 19:26 < Ceiling_Cat> geniice - that's not my question
2008-04-15 19:26 < Ceiling_Cat> obviously a non-neutral net hurts the WMF
2008-04-15 19:26 < Ceiling_Cat> I'm asking the reverse
2008-04-15 19:26 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat yeah technicaly a few
2008-04-15 19:26 < Ceiling_Cat> could a neutral net hurt wikipedia?
2008-04-15 19:27 < Ceiling_Cat> geniice - stop speaking in generalities - name one
2008-04-15 19:27 < Working_Cat> so... neutral network = one were we wont get charged....
2008-04-15 19:27 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat there is a limit to how much they degrade wikipedia without customer complaint
2008-04-15 19:27 < Working_Cat> and a non neutral one is where oft-visited sites do get charged
2008-04-15 19:27 < Ceiling_Cat> Working_Cat - right
2008-04-15 19:27 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat but they could degrate potential competitors with little damage to themselves
2008-04-15 19:27 * Ceiling_Cat sighs
2008-04-15 19:27 < Ceiling_Cat> geniice - that is not an answer to my question.
2008-04-15 19:28 < Working_Cat> geniice: do you think ISPs seem to care about customers?
2008-04-15 19:28 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat thus while we may get some degraded performace a new startup would get far more
2008-04-15 19:28 < Working_Cat> except when they dont pay up
2008-04-15 19:28 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat thus effectively it becomes imposible to ever complete with us
2008-04-15 19:28 < Working_Cat> geniice: though a startup wont score up a million hits a day
2008-04-15 19:28 < Working_Cat> an hour rather
2008-04-15 19:29 < TheWeasel> but that's limited to the US, ay?
2008-04-15 19:29 < Ceiling_Cat> TheWeasel - no, it's not
2008-04-15 19:29 < TheWeasel> Why not?
2008-04-15 19:29 < Ceiling_Cat> in fact, it's starting in the UK'
2008-04-15 19:29 < Ceiling_Cat> http://torrentfreak.com/virgin-media-ceo-says-net-neutrality-is-a-load-of-bollocks-080413/
2008-04-15 19:29 < geniice> Working_Cat wikipedia is something ISP customers want to see. If they can't they risk pushing customers to other services
2008-04-15 19:29 < TheWeasel> well, I'll wait for the EU's stance on the matter.
2008-04-15 19:30 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat legaly he is probably correct at least as far as his company is concernded
2008-04-15 19:30 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat mandated net nuetrality means that there is a greater risk that we get overtaken by competitiors
2008-04-15 19:31 < Ceiling_Cat> geniice - how so? It's pretty clear that on a level playing field, we blow away all competitors
2008-04-15 19:31 < TheWeasel> the whole model of our content is that we give it to anyone.
2008-04-15 19:31 < Working_Cat> geniice: im sure the ISPs will band together pretty well to make a list of sites they will equally block/degrade.
2008-04-15 19:31 < Ceiling_Cat> the only way we could be beaten is if the playing field were tilted in someone else's advtange
2008-04-15 19:31 < Ceiling_Cat> by means of a non-neutral net
2008-04-15 19:31 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat so far yes because we haven't faced anyone better than us
2008-04-15 19:31 < Ceiling_Cat> geniice - if someone "better" than us comes along, we deserve to lose
2008-04-15 19:32 < Ceiling_Cat> on the other hand, better does not mean richer
2008-04-15 19:32 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat loss of net neutrality would probably mean that the playing field would be slightly tilted in our dirrection
2008-04-15 19:32 < Messedrocker> there's something in my front pocket
2008-04-15 19:32 < Messedrocker> for yooooou
2008-04-15 19:32 < Ceiling_Cat> geniice - wrong, absolutely totally wrong
2008-04-15 19:32 < Working_Cat> geniice: i know its hypothetical, but shame on anyone who thinks that non-neutral net being bad for a better startup is a good thing.
2008-04-15 19:32 < Ceiling_Cat> net neutrality hurts poor high-bandwidth sites the most
2008-04-15 19:32 < Ceiling_Cat> and that's us
2008-04-15 19:32 < Ceiling_Cat> it favors the rich
2008-04-15 19:33 < geniice> Working_Cat no I was saying it was worse
2008-04-15 19:33 < Ceiling_Cat> it gives any potential competitors a huge advantage
2008-04-15 19:33 < Ceiling_Cat> as long as they can afford it
2008-04-15 19:33 < Working_Cat> i agree with Ceiling_Cat
2008-04-15 19:33 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat actualy we are pretty low bandwidth per pageload
2008-04-15 19:33 * TheWeasel thinks national and EU trust law will deal with that here
2008-04-15 19:33 < TheWeasel> the ISP side anyway
2008-04-15 19:33 < Ceiling_Cat> geniice - we have huge bandwidth. Anyone else who competes with us will face that as well
2008-04-15 19:33 < Working_Cat> TheWeasel: im not so optimistic about the damn US courts
2008-04-15 19:34 < Ceiling_Cat> in a net-neutral world, the site with the better content wins
2008-04-15 19:34 < Ceiling_Cat> in a non-net neutral world, the richer sites wins
2008-04-15 19:34 < Ceiling_Cat> understand?
2008-04-15 19:34 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat not exactly
2008-04-15 19:34 < Ceiling_Cat> Yes, that is it exactly.
2008-04-15 19:34 * TheWeasel is not a citizen of the US, thank goodness.
2008-04-15 19:34 < Working_Cat> but why - other than barefaced greed - do ISPs want to do that?
2008-04-15 19:34 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat an ISP has to balance customer demand against the amount they can degrade
2008-04-15 19:34 * Working_Cat isnt either... but damnit
2008-04-15 19:34 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat degrade wikipedia too far you lose customets
2008-04-15 19:34 < Ceiling_Cat> Working_Cat - you already said it -- barefaced greed
2008-04-15 19:34 < geniice> customers
2008-04-15 19:35 < Working_Cat> Ceiling_Cat: but i meant, whats the 'reason' they are giving
2008-04-15 19:35 < Ceiling_Cat> ok, so I'll re-ask my question one last time
2008-04-15 19:35 * TheWeasel doesn't think most people have the energy to switch provider that quickly
2008-04-15 19:35 < Ceiling_Cat> can anyone construct a scenario in which net neutrality hurts wikipedia?
2008-04-15 19:35 < Ceiling_Cat> or the WMF?
2008-04-15 19:35 < Golbez> Pichu0102
2008-04-15 19:35 < Golbez> props on the mgs2 quote in your quit message
2008-04-15 19:35 < TheWeasel> isn't net neutrality what we have now?
2008-04-15 19:35 < Working_Cat> Ceiling_Cat: a level playing field in terms of free access wont hurt us at all.
2008-04-15 19:35 < Working_Cat> TheWeasel: yeah. thats what we have right now.
2008-04-15 19:35 < TheWeasel> Right.
2008-04-15 19:35 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat lower profits for ISPs means less investment in infrastructure meaning web grinds to a halt.
2008-04-15 19:36 < Working_Cat> and thats the reasoning i have for my answer to Ceiling_Cat 's Q
2008-04-15 19:36 < TheWeasel> over here building infrastructure is mandated.
2008-04-15 19:36 < Ceiling_Cat> geniice - 90% of the internet infrastructure is unused
2008-04-15 19:36 < Golbez> geniice- shouldn't the end user be paying for all this, not some other entity that has nothing to do with their network?
2008-04-15 19:36 < Ceiling_Cat> there's oodles of dark fiber out there
2008-04-15 19:36 < Golbez> and yeah, the internet is not exactly clogged
2008-04-15 19:36 < Golbez> only the last mile is
2008-04-15 19:36 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat not all of it is in the right place
2008-04-15 19:36 < Cream> gosh
2008-04-15 19:36 < Cream> i fuckin' love prankdialer
2008-04-15 19:36 < geniice> Golbez second to last as well
2008-04-15 19:37 < Golbez> geniice- why should wikipedia fund the widening of that last mile?
2008-04-15 19:37 < Ceiling_Cat> geniice - that may be so, but (respectfully) your argument is still absurd
2008-04-15 19:37 < Working_Cat> geniice: the ISPs make enough money as it is without extortion money
2008-04-15 19:37 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat oh now you demand an argument that isn't absurd?
2008-04-15 19:37 < Golbez> lol
2008-04-15 19:37 < geniice> Working_Cat yes and no. See in the UK there is real competition
2008-04-15 19:38 * Cream enter his sister's # number to prank
2008-04-15 19:38 < Working_Cat> geniice: i think he demanded that to start with.
2008-04-15 19:38 < Cyrius> he's got a point, you never said it had to be a reasonable argument
2008-04-15 19:38 < Ceiling_Cat> geniice - yes, I shall retroactively add "non-absurd" as a requirement
2008-04-15 19:38 < Working_Cat> lol
2008-04-15 19:38 < Ceiling_Cat> Can anyone construct a *reasonable, reality-based* scenario in which net neutrality hurts wikipedia and/or the WMF?
2008-04-15 19:39 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat harder. Unlimited bandwidth allowes for more complex aplications that require greater server resources. People come to expect this and wikipedia can't provide due to cost of supporting?
2008-04-15 19:39 < Ceiling_Cat> note: "aliens, infuriated by our commie-hippie policies, wipe out humanity" does not count.
2008-04-15 19:39 < Sceptre> Ceiling_Cat: does giant reptilians?
2008-04-15 19:40 < Sceptre> we all know the Royal Family are behind it
2008-04-15 19:40 < Ceiling_Cat> geniice - better (in the sense that it's not absurd), but still an extremely weak argument
2008-04-15 19:41 < geniice> Working_Cat anyway the thing is most people with unlimited bandwidth don't use most of it effectiveily subsidiseing those who do. The BBC then went and released the iPlayer meaning that your average person is suddenly useing more bandwidth
2008-04-15 19:41 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat problem is that wikipedia is very optimised for the web as is so a no change senario is unlikely to cause a problem
2008-04-15 19:42 < geniice> so we have to come up with a way net neutrality will change the web
2008-04-15 19:42 < geniice> and well there isn't really one
2008-04-15 19:42 < Ceiling_Cat> geniice - right, net neutrality means government legally mandating the status quo
2008-04-15 19:43 < Ceiling_Cat> it is patently obvious it won't hurt wikipedia
2008-04-15 19:43 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat yes and no it's knock us out of the top ten websites I don't know if that counts as hurt
2008-04-15 19:45 < Working_Cat> how would net neutrality knock us out?
2008-04-15 19:45 < Ceiling_Cat> Working_Cat - it wouldn't, as far as I can tell
2008-04-15 19:45 < geniice> Working_Cat allows more social networking sites to appear. I suspect we will drift out the top ten around 2009
2008-04-15 19:46 < Working_Cat> geniice: but our traffic would nonetheless keep increasing
2008-04-15 19:47 < Working_Cat> also, social networking sites are bound to hit pleataus
2008-04-15 19:47 < Working_Cat> plateaus
2008-04-15 19:47 < geniice> yes
2008-04-15 19:47 < geniice> but there are entire continental areas to get involved yet
2008-04-15 19:48 < Working_Cat> so in that case, a loss of Top 10 ranking - if it at all happens - will be more of an "aww shucks" more than anything else.
2008-04-15 19:48 < Working_Cat> geniice: India and Brazil - pretty large populations - are both totally hooked on to Orkut.
2008-04-15 19:48 < geniice> Ceiling_Cat why are you asking anyway
2008-04-15 19:48 < Working_Cat> and from what im seeing, its hit a definite plateau.
2008-04-15 19:49 < geniice> keep an eye on hi5
2008-04-15 19:49 < Working_Cat> and im seeing it on facebook too. lots of people are going "meh, havent logged in in a few days"
2008-04-15 19:49 < Monobi> Debian pride world wide!
2008-04-15 19:49 < Working_Cat> hi5 was my first social networking site :D with 5 friends
2008-04-15 19:50 < geniice> Working_Cat yes but they are responding by moveing to Bebo
2008-04-15 19:51 < Working_Cat> meh, im outta the social loop. and intend to stay there.
2008-04-15 19:51 < Working_Cat> geniice: which one had more hits last year? FB or WP?
2008-04-15 19:51 < Working_Cat> and its not rhetoric
2008-04-15 19:53 < mdd4696> Hey all I need some advice: Should I register a .net or a .org for a website on metadata and tags (like those on Flickr)? I'm the only one going to be running it so I don't really consider myself an organization...
2008-04-15 19:53 < geniice> Working_Cat facebook probably passed us in about august last year
2008-04-15 19:54 < geniice> mdd4696 technicaly .US would probably be correct .net is more techysounding but .org is more common
2008-04-15 19:54 < ijustam> i used .net because .org was lame :p
2008-04-15 19:55 < geniice> hmp I see we've been overtaken by hi5
2008-04-15 19:55 < ijustam> also it's a free market so if someone wants my domain they can pay me for it
2008-04-15 19:55 < ijustam> although it's uncommon so i dont see that happening
2008-04-15 19:56 < mdd4696> I kind of prefer .net for this site, but a similar site is registered as a .org
2008-04-15 19:56 < mdd4696> Meh, I think I am overanalyzing
2008-04-15 19:56 < Working_Cat> yes you are
2008-04-15 19:56 < Working_Cat> geniice: a sad world indeed.
2008-04-15 19:56 < geniice> orkut.com has been exchanageing places with wikipedia pretty regualy of late
2008-04-15 19:57 < Working_Cat> though i suppose not everyone is a social retard like me.
2008-04-15 19:57 < Working_Cat> and many people DO have friends.
2008-04-15 19:57 < Cyrius> people use orkut?
2008-04-15 19:57 < geniice> acualy other than that doesn't look too bad raipaid share and blogs
2008-04-15 19:57 < Cyrius> I kid
2008-04-15 19:57 < geniice> Cyrius in brazil yes
2008-04-15 19:58 * Cyrius has no accounts on any of the "social networking" sites
2008-04-15 19:58 < geniice> uh oh keep an eye on Skyrock
2008-04-15 19:58 < Cyrius> on what?
2008-04-15 19:59 < geniice> frecnch social networking site
2008-04-15 20:00 * Cyrius doesn't really understand the appeal of those sites
2008-04-15 20:00 < geniice> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyrock_Blog
2008-04-15 20:00 < kreme> I have heard of it
2008-04-15 20:00 < geniice> appeal is irrelivant it is gaining on us
2008-04-15 20:01 < NoPegs> IRC.. The original social network...
2008-04-15 20:02 < Cyrius> not talking about chat systems
2008-04-15 20:02 * Working_Cat offers NoPegs some pegs
2008-04-15 20:02 < Cyrius> it's the sites where people decide they want to tell the whole world "zomg i liek mudkips" that I don't get
2008-04-15 20:02 < Working_Cat> 4chan?
2008-04-15 20:02 < Cyrius> myspace.
2008-04-15 20:03 < Cyrius> facebook, and the other stuff already mentioned
2008-04-15 20:03 < Working_Cat> jeez, relax. no need to get all possessive.
2008-04-15 20:03 < Cyrius> that joke wasn't very good
2008-04-15 20:03 < Working_Cat> no it wasnt
2008-04-15 20:03 < Working_Cat> i have been at work 11 hours now
2008-04-15 20:03 < Working_Cat> and only 3 of them on #wikipedia
2008-04-15 20:03 < kreme> i like ED for memes
2008-04-15 20:05 < kreme> i killed chat :(
2008-04-15 20:05 < Working_Cat> yeah, you mentioned ED. everyone here now hates you.
2008-04-15 20:06 * TheWeasel is back
2008-04-15 20:06 * TheWeasel does not find ED-type humor funny
2008-04-15 20:06 < Working_Cat> except for TheWeasel
2008-04-15 20:06 < denelson83> ED? ex-dork?
2008-04-15 20:06 < geniice> Friends Reunited dates back to 1999
2008-04-15 20:06 < TheWeasel> Exodork.
2008-04-15 20:06 < Working_Cat> well, i'll buzz off now
2008-04-15 20:06 < denelson83> That's exadork to you
2008-04-15 20:06 < Working_Cat> Education Domination
2008-04-15 20:07 < Cyrius> TheWeasel: erectile dysfunction is hilarious (as long as it's not you)
2008-04-15 20:07 < TheWeasel> Even then, just not for me
2008-04-15 20:08 < TheWeasel> :-D
2008-04-15 20:08 < TheWeasel> As long as I'm unmarried, anyway.
2008-04-15 20:10 < Messedrocker> My spam has hit an all-time high of 1,420 in the past month
2008-04-15 20:14 < denelson83> OH
2008-04-15 20:14 < gwern> 'The the actual write occurs via a structure offset. Flash is hardcoded to translate your offset into another number. Working offsets, as it turns out, will be greater than 0x80000000, and will be evenly divisible by 12 after 4 is added to them. Note: I thought I was hardcore when I wrote shellcode with no lowercase letters for the IMAP vulnerability in the ’90s.
2008-04-15 20:14 < denelson83> Messedrocker: FUCK SPAM
2008-04-15 20:14 < gwern> That’s not all. The value that Flash will write to the wild pointer isn’t totally controlled by the attacker either. It’s cast up from a 16 bit integer to a 32 bit integer, and has another variable subtracted to it. This is the point in the report that I started giggling uncontrollably, embarassing myself at the coffee shop.'
2008-04-15 20:14 < Chetblong> coffee!
2008-04-15 20:14 * Chetblong was pinged
2008-04-15 20:14 < Chetblong> XD
2008-04-15 20:15 < denelson83> who pinged you?
2008-04-15 20:15 < Chetblong> gwern with teh coffee
2008-04-15 20:15 < Chetblong> :P
2008-04-15 20:16 * gwern wonders why coffee pings Chetblong
2008-04-15 20:16 < denelson83> oh
2008-04-15 20:16 < Chetblong> I like coffee :)
2008-04-15 20:18 < LiraNuna> you got coffee as a beep word?
2008-04-15 20:18 < Chetblong> yep
2008-04-15 20:18 < LiraNuna> haha
2008-04-15 20:19 < Chetblong> XD
2008-04-15 20:28 * TheWeasel shuts down his uranium-driven laptop
2008-04-15 20:28 < denelson83> O_O
2008-04-15 20:29 * TheWeasel gets a slight overheating, but I think I can handle
2008-04-15 20:30 < TheWeasel> Well, now my cooling water is gone, but we should be fine if I get it to shut down quickly enWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM
2008-04-15 20:30 < NoPegs> Think of the testicular damage...
2008-04-15 20:30 < Messedrocker> HEY HO WHAT DO WE KNOW!
2008-04-15 20:31 * TheWeasel loves the optimism some pilots and nuclear power station technicians are known for
2008-04-15 20:31 < TheWeasel> "we just lost two wings, we're doing okay though, just some spilt coffee."
2008-04-15 20:32 < Chetblong> O_O
2008-04-15 20:32 < Chetblong> coffee!
2008-04-15 20:32 * Chetblong drinks
2008-04-15 20:32 < TheWeasel> seriously, some last words from recovered blackboxes are oddly cheerful and optimistic
2008-04-15 20:33 < Luigi30> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/workers_of_the_world%2C_unite
2008-04-15 20:33 < Luigi30> 1. Laborers are encouraged to unionize or otherwise engage in collective action in order to use the strength of their numbers to obtain better conditions.
2008-04-15 20:34 < TheWeasel> Zimbabwe.
2008-04-15 20:34 < TheWeasel> (the funny thing is that ZANU-PF is purportedly left-wing itself
2008-04-15 20:35 < TheWeasel> but yea, it's not really a dictionary entry, or a proper explanation
2008-04-15 20:35 < TheWeasel> mostly a)
2008-04-15 20:36 < TheWeasel> it's funny how state socialism dislikes actual workers' action.
2008-04-15 20:37 < Messedrocker> when it ought to appreciate the workers
2008-04-15 20:37 < Messedrocker> because the workers are the people of the nation
2008-04-15 20:37 < Messedrocker> good lord, do i actually use my left hand to type the letter "n"
2008-04-15 20:37 < TheWeasel> they do the equivalent of the mathematician who wants to trap an elephant in a fence, then builds one around himself and defines himself as the outside..
2008-04-15 20:38 < TheWeasel> "in socialism, workers are happy by definition. Therefore, strike is treason."
2008-04-15 20:43 < fale_> what is the day between tuesday and thursday?
2008-04-15 20:43 < Messedrocker> wednesday
2008-04-15 20:43 < fale_> Messedrocker: thx :)
2008-04-15 20:44 < Messedrocker> say, if i want to do a grep based on a regex, do i have to specify that it's a regex?
2008-04-15 20:49 < TheWeasel> Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
2008-04-15 20:49 < TheWeasel> To get to the same side.
2008-04-15 20:55 < electrostatic> This statement occurs several times on WP "The radian is used in virtually all mathematical work beyond simple practical geometry", and while techinically correct for pure mathematics, completey ignores the fact that almost all engineering drawings (both digital and print) still use degrees. (At least all of them I have ever seen in the aerospace field)
2008-04-15 20:56 < Messedrocker> Ah, but is it really our problems that those HEATHENS still say that a fraction is compose of parts out of the utterly random number three-hundred-sixty?
2008-04-15 20:56 < Messedrocker> :P
2008-04-15 20:56 < TheWeasel> "Let p be a point q, we'll call it r."
2008-04-15 20:57 < Messedrocker> a circle is composed*
2008-04-15 20:57 < electrostatic> Messedrocker: lol
2008-04-15 20:57 * Cream cuddles Messedrocker
2008-04-15 20:58 < electrostatic> The pure math people will destroy us all.
2008-04-15 20:58 < Cream> you mean asians?
2008-04-15 20:58 < electrostatic> heh
2008-04-15 20:58 < TheWeasel> heh... "My dog is called Cauchy. It leaves a residue on every pole."
2008-04-15 20:58 < Cream> that was a easy joke :P
2008-04-15 21:00 < electrostatic> And 360 wasn't random... (And even beyond the length of a year)
2008-04-15 21:00 < quanticle> Heh.
2008-04-15 21:00 < electrostatic> Most people don't notice though.
2008-04-15 21:00 < quanticle> electrostatic: Wasn't the 360 a result of the Sumerians' base 60 mathematical system?
2008-04-15 21:00 < electrostatic> quanticle: yes
2008-04-15 21:01 < Messedrocker> i thought it was the result of the greeks
2008-04-15 21:01 < TheWeasel> Base 60 is too bad.
2008-04-15 21:01 < Messedrocker> saying that there were 360 days in a year
2008-04-15 21:01 < denelson83> electrostatic: What about mils?
2008-04-15 21:01 < TheWeasel> *big
2008-04-15 21:01 < electrostatic> Sumerians / Babyl.. used base 60
2008-04-15 21:01 < denelson83> Babylonians
2008-04-15 21:01 < Messedrocker> amazing that they were off by only 5.25 days
2008-04-15 21:01 < TheWeasel> nobody will want to memorize sixty glyphs
2008-04-15 21:02 < electrostatic> denelson83: milliradians?
2008-04-15 21:02 < denelson83> no
2008-04-15 21:02 < denelson83> 6400 mils in a circle - used by the military
2008-04-15 21:03 * TheWeasel uses "half past two" and stuff
2008-04-15 21:03 < denelson83> clock angles
2008-04-15 21:03 < denelson83> they're used by Burning Man
2008-04-15 21:04 < electrostatic> denelson83: I've never seen that on an engineering drawing, but I don't have sec clearance so the only mil parts I've seen are form the late 70's early 80's
2008-04-15 21:04 < denelson83> Garmin GPS units can display headings in mils
2008-04-15 21:04 < electrostatic> Anyway, 360 is evenly divisible by every number from one to 12 except......... Seven and Eleven.
2008-04-15 21:04 < Messedrocker> 7-Eleven is great!
2008-04-15 21:04 < TheWeasel> you can't even adjust your autopilot that precisely
2008-04-15 21:04 < quanticle> TheWeasel: Why's base 60 so bad? 60, like 12, has an exceptionally large number of factors compared to its neighbors.
2008-04-15 21:05 < TheWeasel> it is good that way
2008-04-15 21:05 < denelson83> Re-arrange the letters in "Seven Eleven Incorporated" and you get "open it and never ever close"