DrmDoc

Perhaps to this discussion... and your earlier question as to how I conceive the universe, which I described as a bubble expanding into nothingness.

I understand that Hillary may not be saying the things that supporters of Bernie want to hear and she knows it. Hillary did say in one clips that she didn't want to make promises she might not be able to keep and was, deservedly, applauded for that. Regardless, Bernie supporters should appreciate Hillary's frankness and understand that she remains their only hope for enacting the policies they favor.

As Swansont has informed, isotropy refer to the uniformity of our universe in all directions--but not necessarily indicative of a finite universe.

A recent article published by Physical Review Letters may relate to your discussion here as it appears to confirm the isotropic nature of our universe. I posted a link to the abstract under Science News forum of this science discussion site.

Here is a link to an abstract of article published by Physical Review Letters on this very subject. Apologies, I do not have a link to the full article outside of University access. According to the abstract, "Including all degrees of freedom simultaneously for the first time, anisotropic expansion of the Universe is strongly disfavored, with odds of 121 000:1 against." Enjoy!

I reviewed my comments for where I might have inferred that government employees have certain freedoms of speech or where I might have referenced "political correctness" issues. Although I didn't find any references I might have made to "political correctness", I did find comments essentially expressing a position similar to yours. Government employees and elected officials, with few exceptions, have a greater responsibility to the public than individuals not in government. These officials should be held to a higher standard and should not have the same freedoms of expression as the public. As to political correctness, I support civility regardless of form or expression.

Here, yet again, we have an official in government exercising a measure of free speech to which he is not entitled. Mayor Charles Wasko of West York, PA (USA), posted to Facebook what he thought was a amusing picture of orangutans in a wheelbarrow with the caption, "Aw...moving day at the Whitehouse has finally arrived" (Associated Press). According to the AP article, that wheelbarrow was also affixed with the slogan, "Kenya of bust"...needless to say, there is outrage and calls for his resignation. Perhaps it isn't so remarkable that some of us continue to demonstrate how little we have evolved beyond our primitive and tribal nature. .

I disagree. Your calculations assume that labor wages are the sole cost of producing Little Debbie Zebra Cakes, which they are definitively not. Assuming that $0.50 includes a profit margin of 20% that suggests total expenses in cake production is about $0.30 per cake. That $0.30 includes ingredient costs, advertising, transit, utilities, labor, and various other miscellaneous costs. Actual wages, excluding benefits, may not amount to more than 2-3% of the overall cost of producing that Little Debbie cake. Furthermore, that full minimum wage increase would only apply to new hires rather than established workers who likely make higher wages thus requiring a lesser jump to the new minimum. New hires may amount to no more than %10 of the entire work force. Essentially, minimum wage increases for large manufacturers may result in only a fraction of additional production costs leading to fractional increases in sales prices. An increase in the minimum wage is affordable to businesses both big and small. The only obstruction to businesses is the perception of a lower profit margin due to negligible wage increases--businesses would still remain profitable. NOTE: Having just now notices Strange's comments, I agree you should know all this already--if you've truly studied economics.

You've raised several issues here that appear to favor Trump's position on US jobs...whatever that may truly be. You should understand that Trump's brand and sole interest until his political bid was big business. He himself have boasted about various deals and business ventures he negotiated and pursued beyond our shores. Those foreign deals and businesses certainly weren't for the benefit of American workers and small business. Therefore, he is hardly a credible champion for jobs and small business owners in America. Unfortunately, there are good reasons why certain businesses shift jobs and manufacturing to other nations, which has nothing to do with the prominently touted infrastructure issues Trump mentioned during the debate. The bottom line issues for most businesses are profits, taxes, and regulation. Lower wages and benefits with longer work hours, tax forgiveness or reciprocal agreements, and less manufacturing regulations that protect workers and the environment offer huge financial incentives for American businesses to move their operations to other nations. To keep those jobs here, our government would have to make it more expensive for businesses to operate elsewhere or less expensive to operate here It's a catch-22, one alternative hurts businesses bottom line while the other harms employees and the environment. Although neither candidate has proposed a suitable alternative, one candidate appears to be the clearer choice for champion American jobs and the working class as she doesn't appear to come from big business. This issue of minimum wage increasing to a standard of $15/hr. will not have quite the impact those who oppose it want us to believe. The opposition believes small businesses will suffer the most under this wage increase; however, those businesses employ relatively few employees and have greater flexibility in making minor price adjustments to remain competitive and maintain their bottom line. With a universal minimum wage increase, all affected small businesses will have to make similar adjustments essentially resulting in no change to their competitiveness or profit margin. Small businesses may also benefit from higher consumerism as an effect of higher wages paid to employees. This whole issue of raising the minimum wage is about businesses believing that paying workers more will somehow diminish their profits margin, which just isn't true. It will simply make more money available to the economy.

Welcome, swansont, to the club of reasoned responses to insubstantial evidence and blatantly uneven standards...otherwise called the club of "apologetics." Careful, Delta1212, lest you also become a member of our hallowed club.

Didn't you say this thread isn't about Mr. Trump? By the way, he as much admitted on several occasions that he was "smart" for using our tax laws to not pay his fair share. PN: I now see you've apologized for reversing your stance on Trump posts. I see no need...he is the elephant in the room.

Nobody is claiming that Mrs. Clinton didn't make mistakes. However, those mistakes discussed here do not rise to the level of condemnation you seem to be demanding regardless of every legitimate mitigating factor also discussed here. You seem to be demanding that we hold Mrs. Clinton's credibility and honesty to an extraordinary standard, which I suspect would be different under similar circumstance for any politician other than Mrs. Clinton. Although you may believe otherwise, no one is canonizing Hillary here by addressing the politically inflated and hollow claims of maleficence her detractors continually tout.

Yes, unfortunately, you do...does this response suggest you've reversed your decision to not engage my commentary?

He never really explained that to me either...before he refused to engage me because I am, in his opinion, also an apologist.

I have a similar issue with the idea that something can essential arise from nothing, which is a idea many respected physicists believe.

I've observed or received no tangible evidence confirming that anything does exist outside our universe.

I conceptualize the universe as a bubble expanding into to nothingness--meaning nothing exists outside or beyond our universe. This infers that our universe has boundaries; however, as I've tried to explain, there's distinction between what I conceive and what I believe. What I conceive isn't evidence of fact or probability as what I decide to believe surely must be.

Although statistically it is highly likely we are not, we are alone until tangible or observable evidence proves we are not. Furthermore, reservations about whether we are alone in the universe isn't a deterrent to our continued efforts to prove we are not--just as present-day levels of testing are not a deterrent to future efforts to prove your idea of a multiverse. However, until such proof is provided, multiverses do not exist.

I'm not denying your faith in what future testing may or may not reveal. I'm merely saying that faith in an idea without rigorous, provable evidence in science is merely religion--which is the antithesis of science.

I hear Trump isn't properly preparing for the debates and spontaneity isn't his forte. However, Hillary shouldn't be lulled into thinking she may have an advantage against a popular public pitchman like Trump. He has a way of pulling the wool over peoples eyes and making other blink but he doesn't impress me as being particularly bright. Hillary should find a way to emphasize the qualifying distinctions between she and the Donald without the distraction of labeling or belittling him and his constituents.

Although the logic, ideas, interpretations, and theories about a thing exist, those aren't tangible evidence that it actually does. A belief without observable, factual evidence is faith and religion--which isn't science or scientific.

I don't think anyone here is trying to stifle discussion of Mrs. Clinton's foibles and no one should consider a challenge to their opinion or evidence here as an attempt to do so--at least that is not the intent of my challenges. If I challenge an opinion here, it's with the intent to obtain and disseminate real truths rather than a preponderance of assumption based on perceptions so many erroneously consider credible evidence.

Red ants! Stepping in their mounds barefoot or sitting on them accidentally, I have nothing but fond memories of them growing up in the south. Avoid them, we didn't and seldom had to. They weren't as much pests to us as they were sources of cruel childhood amusement. Oh, the things we did to them and to others with them! Those warm summers and the sweet smell of honeysuckle, it was an innocent time that passed so quickly. Regarding the article, I do recall that wherever the red ant's nested, it was more difficult to find the insects we used for fish bate and the small animals we collected as pets (e.g., frogs and lizards).

I agree, he seems to be vilifying Hillary for her political leanings rather than real evidence of corruption. His reason, I think, is evident in a few prior posts where I believe he might have mentioned his strong socialist affinity--which isn't necessarily an indictment of his opinion but is very suggestive of the source of his aversion to conservative leaning politicians.