Slashdot Mirror

Your magic thinking will not stop copycats. It does, however, help the liberals hide the Truth from God-fearing Conservatives!

Nidal Malik Hasan

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

Seung-Hui Cho

James Holmes

Adam Lanza

Your magic thinking will not stop copycats. It does, however, help the liberals hide the Truth from God-fearing Conservatives!

Nidal Malik Hasan

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

Seung-Hui Cho

James Holmes

Adam Lanza

Your magic thinking will not stop copycats. It does, however, help the liberals hide the Truth from God-fearing Conservatives!

Nidal Malik Hasan

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

Seung-Hui Cho

James Holmes

Adam Lanza

Your magic thinking will not stop copycats. It does, however, help the liberals hide the Truth from God-fearing Conservatives!

Nidal Malik Hasan

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

Seung-Hui Cho

James Holmes

Adam Lanza

Your magic thinking will not stop copycats. It does, however, help the liberals hide the Truth from God-fearing Conservatives!

Nidal Malik Hasan

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

Seung-Hui Cho

James Holmes

Adam Lanza

Don't forget good old Conservapedia! The wikipedia clone for people who think that "Relativity", the concept from physics, is related to "Relativism", the philsophical rejection of the concept of moral absolutes...

There really should be a Scientology Proven Right web page in the spirit of Conservapedia's:

Xenu Scientific Foreknowledge: The universe is 4 quadrillion years old.
Liberal claptrap in response: The universe is 13.7 billion years old.
Result: The latest Plank spacecraft measurement is 13.8 billion years. Scientology Proven Right!

As soon as someone starts harping on about Solyendra, then you know they have as little knowledge about government energy investments as they do about other thought terminating cliches, such as socialism. To the conservative mind, Solyendra is merely a thought terminating cliche. A single word that is the beginning and end of an ideological analysis.

Sure Solyendra was a disaster, but 95% of the investments were not, the money is substantially coming back, and we have new successful companies pioneering the technologies for the economy of tomorrow. The economy that is going to deliver year-on-year growth that will keep your mortgage afloat, and you solvant.

Bertrand Russell was spot on about fools and the wise. Please go learn something about the governments investments in clean energy.

Point taken, but just because a product that was half baked didn't sell the first time, does that mean we just sort of give up and never try selling the product again now that it is further along? Certainly, we don't keep trying for a win after the fourth or fifth loss but just giving up on the concept entirely seems somewhat premature?

And people continually try to fork it. The earliest instance of this that I remember is citizendium but often what spurs a fork is a very specific thing (okay sometimes they change multiple things but usually it's one big factor). And the reason for that is that Wikipedia has done very well. It's easy to criticize anything claiming to be the nexus of "good enough" human knowledge because any label like that is inherently flammable.

A more recent example is Conservapedia which changes one big thing: NPOV now stands for Nixon's Point of View:

Barack Hussein Obama II (b. August 4, 1961, either in Kenya or Honolulu, Hawaii) was elected the 44th President. Promoted heavily by liberals, as demonstrated by his unjustified receipt of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, Obama won the presidency despite a short and unremarkable political career by outspending his opponent, John McCain, by hundreds of millions of dollars in 2008.

Now, aside from the entertainment value of that line, you have to tell me what your fork is going to do differently and how is that going to be better for your fork? I think that any attempts to fix this could result in even bigger problems for your newer-Pedia and would simply succumb to being a less popular Wikipedia. So what are your change(s) and what negative effects could arise from them?

Wikipedia, really?

[citation of a valid source needed]

Yes, Wikipedia has an obvious bias towards facts. Try this instead.

There's truth in what you say, but the GOP already has wiki of their own, with all sorts of misinformation.

They don't.

They believe in Conservapedia.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Go. Read.

--
BMO

Rich money whoring sellout A, or rich money whoring sellout B? Does anybody think a McSame presidency would have been any different from a Nobama? Or that Mittens will do ANYTHING differently, other than put a different spin on it?

One of those things could add a lot more religion into the system. The other one isn't good but at least it has that going for it.

PS: Please glance through conservapedia before dismissing this...

Nothing brainwashes a kid more than religion and has started more wars than anything else. Just ask all the religious guys what sites they do like and filter that.

Start with http://www.conservapedia.com/ and work from there on.

No, they mean Darwin and Mendel, surely?

No, they mean Darwin and Mendel, surely?

Part of the problem is that it is actually illegal in some areas for schools to allow access to Wikipedia.

I can imagine how in the north of Mali, in Timbuktu, the new islamist rulers would want to block access to Wikipedia (which ones? the french, or arabic wikipedia?), but surely most of the world population is quite happy that their children have access to this valuable resource--or would be happy if their children were allowed to access it.
Can you actually name an area or a school or a country where Wikipedia is illegal? Besides such epitomes of freedom such as North Korea, Burma, and Saudi Arabia, I mean?

Maybe the USA "Conservapedia" can help out for those countries (that website really exists! this is *NOT* a joke! I think... although you'd doubt it, reading the Wikipedia entry about it).

Just like the Wikipedia content is divided out over multiple different languages, the "Conservapedia" could cater for the USA Christian Fundamentalists, Al-Qaida wannabees, Salafists, Taliban etc. etc.

My first thought was "Gee, they're using 'democrat' and 'republican' keywords - I wonder if they're making use of Conservapedia's Best New Conservative Words? Andy Schlafly has already charted this linguistic ocean, and obviously every scientist should follow his superior conservative insights! ...and they probably should only use conservative terms, because 'republican' terms may include RINO terms."

They even have an article on Examples of Bias in Wikipedia to prove it. It's their 9th most viewed page. Because proof for Conservapedia whatever they pull out of their asses.

Their second most viewed page is THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA. See the full list. It's unusual that only one of their top ten is about homosexuality. In the past as many as seven of the top ten most viewed pages have been about it.

They even have an article on Examples of Bias in Wikipedia to prove it. It's their 9th most viewed page. Because proof for Conservapedia whatever they pull out of their asses.

Their second most viewed page is THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA. See the full list. It's unusual that only one of their top ten is about homosexuality. In the past as many as seven of the top ten most viewed pages have been about it.

If they don't like the 'liberal bias' (read: intersection with reality) that they see in Wikipedia, they can go use Conservapedia with all the other conservative folks.

any history or development on subjects focus solely on American aspects.

Actually that's part of the point. From their Quick Reference page,

Conservapedia articles' tone, style, and content should be written with an American, conservative and/or Christian orientation or focus.

"pornography leads to terrible crimes against women and children" [from http://conservapedia.com/Porn%5D citing my sources for the reliable truth of the matter... this is reliable isn't it?

There is always a way to ignore reality. http://conservapedia.com/Theory_of_relativity

There is only one Wikipedia.

They could switch over to use the Conservapedia instead.. ;-)
(if you don't believe that it's real or how bad it is, its front page today has the slogan "Grinding belief in evolution into a fine pulp" ... though to their considerable credit, they do have a page on http://conservapedia.com/Deliberate_ignorance with 1 line definition and the rest examples)

There is only one Wikipedia.

They could switch over to use the Conservapedia instead.. ;-)
(if you don't believe that it's real or how bad it is, its front page today has the slogan "Grinding belief in evolution into a fine pulp" ... though to their considerable credit, they do have a page on http://conservapedia.com/Deliberate_ignorance with 1 line definition and the rest examples)

It appears that in US politics, appearing intelligent is bad for one's career.

Well, of course! After all, getting educated is a sign of liberal indoctrination!

Look moron, there's no grant money for disproving gravity yet there's plenty enough for the other way around. And you gravity believers try to equate us to nazi sympathizers by calling us gravity deniers. We're gravity skeptics, and we're just waiting for conclusive proof to make a decision. Most gravitymongering hype is bullshit and it's all just being pushed by media profiting off fear and politicians profiting off pro-gravity legislation. So until we hear from neutral sources unanimously coming to a consensus, we will rationally remain in doubt.

Wait, now I'm confused - you are still using 'gravity' as a replacement for 'climate change', right?

Given that there are morons that don't believe in relativity it's not impossible that a thread about climate change has attracted actual gravity deniers.

"The problem with Malthus is not the math, it's the model. Anyone can pick assumptions and make a model, and from there make predictions. Mathus erred in assuming that things would not change. An exponential curve is indistinguishable from a bell curve at the long tail beginning, so the evidence seemed to support his prediction."

I read that Malthus recanted his position in a later edition, but no one pays attention to that.
    http://conservapedia.com/Robert_Malthus
"There were other contemporaries who accepted the Malthusian theory but regarded the policy recommendations as both harsh and ineffective. In a later edition of his Essay, Malthus admitted the probability that "having found the bow bent too much one way, I was induced to bend it too much the other, in order to make it straight." "

See for the quote:
http://books.google.com/books?id=KRQAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA427&lpg=PA427

And also:
http://factoidz.com/criticism-of-malthusian-theory-of-population/
"(v) Malthusian theory of population gave no proof of his assertion that population increased exactly in geometric progression and food production increased exactly in arithmetic progression. It has been rightly pointed out that population and food supply does not change in accordance with these mathematical series. Growth of population and food supply cannot be expected to show the precision or accuracy of such series. However, Malthus in the later edition of his book did not insist on these mathematical terms and only held that there was inherent tendency in population to outrun the means of subsistence. We have seen above that even this is far from being true."

More: http://www.google.com/#q=malthus+"Later+edition"

A general issue is that while problems can grow exponentially, so can solutions. Example:
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/

Obviously, 'scientific made a msiatke, as Eearth was created in 6000 yrs.
Source: Conservapedia
[/irony]
This post was here to show a type of (unexpected) reaction to this type of news nowadays.

this site is not a joke (well, not intentionally) and it has more than 0 contributors:

http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity

#s 13 and 25 are my personal favorites.

Wikipedia is liberally biased. Find some proof on a more fair and balanced site and then we'll talk.

The nutcase Young Earth Creationalists over at Conservapedia will be happy! Too bad we couldn't prove it was 6,000 years old, but don't worry, science is always eventually wrong so eventually someone will prove it's as young as we say!

You're right: your "justice" analogy is terrible.

There's a difference between not allowing people to see the data (which was not the case), and not gift wrapping it for people who can't and won't actually make use of it, who are demanding it only because the demand itself seems to demonstrate some flaw in the conclusions of people who actually work with it.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog. Read the talk page as well for an illuminating look at how a challenger of evolution simply won't wrap his head around the fact that the data shows what it shows, and doesn't even really know what he's asking for when he repeatedly demands the "raw data".

ITYM Conservapedia, The Trustworthy Encyclopedia!

http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page

(It might be blocked in less civilised countries.)

He is famous for riding from Boston to Lexington, Massachusetts with William Dawes on the night of April 18, 1775 ringing bells to warn the British that colonists would exercise their natural right to bear arms.

Sadly it's real. Any rational person who reads it thinks nothing real could ever be this idiotic, but it's true. If you want to feel bad for humanity, read the articles on relativity. http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity

http://www.conservapedia.com/Paul_Revere

Answering my own question.... holy shit

Well its not like I could have any less respect for these idiots anyhow.

Wait, is that thing real, or is it a giant pile of satire? This must be the most dedicated piece of satire I have ever read.

...where the editors manage to out-stupid Palin:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Paul_Revere&diff=875976&oldid=875973

Don't they know that Conservapedia is their home on the internet, free of the lies and corruption of the liberal filth?

So, would The Onion's April Fool's joke be to publish an actual, true news story?

No, publishing reality-consistent news is a Conservapedia April Fools joke...

Oddly, I'm not joking...

They aren't going to bother with banning the book...they are just going to rewrite it...

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project That might not turn out as well as you'd hope...

Well, I'm neither an AGW-denier nor a creationist, but at least Mr. Fuckwit would have some basis for calling me an AGW denier, even though my criticisms are valid; the CRU was behaving in an anti-scientific sort of way, and the investigation rightly called them out for it. Calling me a creationist, though, is as stupid a criticism as calling me short. [ShakaUVM]

FWIW, I believe in AGW, and think it’s a serious problem. Does that sound like a crackpot creationist to you? No? Oh, I guess you don’t fucking know what you’re talking about, do you? [ShakaUVM]

... referencing the Salem Hypothesis (a reference to Creationism) *was* insulting. [ShakaUVM]

Thanks for making the record. You sounded just like the Creationists that get really evasive when pressed to explain some of their answers. In fact, saying that they don’t have time to educate people is one of their favorite lines. [ShakaUVM]

Years ago, I wrote an article defining science using falsifiability, and explained why ID/creationism doesn't qualify. In it, I pointed out that "Intelligent Design" advocates are humorously evasive about the identity of the Designer, but "wossname" has to be the funniest example I've ever heard. Anyway, a computer scientist replied to my article, saying "I'm a creationist" then claimed that a prominent atheist scientist's belief in panspermia amounted to secular belief in ID/creationism. He argued that "evolution is almost infinitely adaptable like this, and is thus unfalsifiable" which can be rephrased as "you can prove nearly anything using evolution" or "you can sort of argue anything using evolution" or "... With the same rationale, evolution is impossible to falsify as well...". Like most creationists, he used the term evolutionist liberally but at least he didn't babble about ID excluding creationism. He also didn't pull a Ben Stein by trying to link Darwin to Nazis. Brett's real classy like that.

Later, Marble joined Andy Schlafly and other "skeptics" in

If your idea of a "not completely decided science" is one in which we "get new information daily" then there is no completely decided science. I haven't seen any information contrary to the hypothesis of AGW. I see lots of claims of this evidence, just like I see lots of claims that evolution is not how the variety of species came to be, or claims that the theory of relativity is all wrong. These are all examples of "fact-free science", in that they do not involve scientific evidence. What scientific evidence contrary to AGW do you think you've seen?

Don't get all riled up, it is clearly a collection of Douglas Adams' notes, published posthumously: DouglasA
Therefor, it is to be read as humorous fiction. And it does succeed very well at that.

I had never heard of Conservapedia before. Now I really wish I hadn't.

I had never heard of Conservapedia before. Now I really wish I hadn't.