Phi for All

Thanks for the reminder. When BJ claimed tools were against nature, I just didn't want to deal with that level of ignorance, but he won't be the recipient of any learning from this thread, and it's important not to lend tacit support by saying nothing.

! Moderator Note It's also NOT in the spirit of the religion section of a science discussion forum. You are clearly preaching here, telling us there is only one way to think, and that's against the rules. If you want to make claims like that here, then you have to show evidence to support your ideas. More than hand waiving, more than yelling from a soapbox. Either stop making the claims or start supporting them. You have some people interested in talking to you, but they'll start reporting you if you don't follow the rules.

I thought you'd appreciate the metaphor for modern conservatism. I'm certainly glad nobody accused me of posting it in the wrong joke section. Actually, in this section, the rules are quite clear. You owe us several jokes, and it is THEY that must be funny, not you. I see your point. I have almost everything I need to calculate velocity in your case, given your wife's estimated glacial rate for your "butt".

A turtle gets mugged by two snails. When the cops show up, they ask him what happened, and the shaken turtle replies, "I don't know, it all happened so FAST!"

If Dems got a bonus for ethical treatment, this explanation might work, but they don't. You're holding them to standards where the Republicans get a pass to be pigs, but the best the Dems get is not being like them. I know, I know, you don't care either way because you don't have a horse in the blah, blah, blah. But your admiration of the OLD Republican ways has warped your standards for viewing the present Republicans, imo. Fighting fire with fire (to flip the lying-with-pigs perspective) is sometimes the best way to correct course. In the case of gerrymandering, do you really think the solution is for the Dems to be nicer?

! Moderator Note Since there's no science to discuss, and the OP can't be bothered with the rules, this thread is closed.

! Moderator Note You have a thread for this speculation, please keep everything there.

Happy Birthday, Yusef! I have NO IDEA what you want to discuss exactly. If it has to do with anything before the BB, how can we have evidence? I don't know what algorithm you're talking about. Are you talking about the image you posted? What do you mean by background? I understand, by using so many punctuation marks, that this is somehow important to you, but I wish you would clearly state what you wish to discuss. I understand it's an exciting day, but please stick to the Astronomy & Cosmology topic. Are you objecting to something about the BB or its theory? Are you claiming the BB has something to do with your kidneys? Perhaps just a sentence, maybe two, to help me understand?

! Moderator Note For this reason, staff sometimes lets some folks hammer on far past what we might allow ordinarily. Side-by-side examples of modern reasoning and Iron Age wishful thinking may hopefully speak to future skeptics. We appreciate the pain and suffering the membership is forced to bear in this regard.

I think it would be more probable to move the Earth gradually into an orbit that keeps us habitable but takes us out of the path of the sun's expansion.

! Moderator Note If you wish to discuss these science topics, present the opening post the way you would to a group sitting around a table, NOT like you're teaching a class. This is a science discussion forum, not your blog. Thanks for understanding.

! Moderator Note Sorry, but this isn't a blog. This is a science discussion forum. Please DO NOT write "a series of articles" about anything here. If you wish to discuss science, please open up a topic. This is more like you're trying to teach people, and we have more trusted sources for that. Thanks for understanding.

! Moderator Note Thread closed.

! Moderator Note The "seed" is vague, "properly worked" is the start of a fallacy, and "perfect" is something you're never going to be able to support. Try again.

"We're so sorry, Uncle Albert, we're so sorry if we caused you any pain!" --Linda & Paul McCartney

! Moderator Note Please summarize here. Members shouldn't be required to click any links in order to participate.

! Moderator Note NO. Don't take a "few posts" to give enough details of this concept for members to decide if it's worth their time to discuss it. If you have the mathematical model, present it. Do NOT drag this thread out with promises. If you have supportive evidence, present it in the next post, please.

! Moderator Note SteveKlinko, this obviously isn't how an experiment should be run to be trustworthy. It's not acceptable as support for the claims you've made in the thread. Results should be repeatable. The rest is just repeating reasoning that hasn't persuaded anyone after four pages. This doesn't meet the requirements of our Speculations section, so I have to shut this down. Don't bring this topic up again.

Do you seriously think your political opinions regarding the US isn't pre-neocon Republican? You're a Reagan/Thatcher admirer, I have a brother just like you. If you lived in the US, from your arguments you'd be old school conservative, ala John McCain. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not as impartial as you paint it.

You can't change a person, but you can change the way they act, so we should attack the behavior/arguments, not the people who have them. That's where Clinton made her mistake, imo. If you want the behavior to stop, don't make it part of the person. The behavior is deplorable.

I was calling out the pun about crucifixion and cross-to-bear. It's a humor thing. Who's truth? Yours? Too subjective. This is a HORRIBLE way to learn. Doesn't it assume that you can't be wrong? That anyone who gives you a "strike" (argues against your position) is automatically wrong? Doesn't this also compound the mistake by reinforcing that you have to continue in the face of adversity, as opposed to considering you might be wrong?

I saw what you did there.

! Moderator Note It's rather pointless listening to your arguments if you won't finish them. Please don't start a thread with an argument you're unwilling or unable to support. Thanks for understanding why this is important to us here, and why we feel this methodology gives meaning to our discussions. Otherwise, it's just opinion, which isn't as interesting as a well-supported and reasoned argument (in this case, argument meaning "coherent reasoning designed to support a point of view", as opposed to an angry quarrel).

! Moderator Note This is the most focused of your arguments. Please show how Walmart shut down ALL the small owner-operated stores. Please show how cheating is the only way to compete with Walmart. Otherwise, this is soapboxing (claims without support shouted loudly).

Folks in rural areas don't have to be less educated (and duped because of it) to be disenfranchised by our current system. There are already fewer of them, they cost more wrt infrastructure and services, cleaning up air and water is more expensive, and they have the biggest disparity between the wealthy and the poor. This study suggests it's partly a density problem. 1% of extra density in a population translates to 4% higher wages. And in rural areas, most folks work for the big land owners doing un- or low-skilled jobs that don't require a lot of education, so there's little incentive. We need to network together without the assumption that one lifestyle is better or smarter than the other. We need the urban and rural parts of our country working together. I keep thinking that for every person who feels stuck in a podunk cow-town, there's a city-dweller who's just dying to get out of the rat race. I think urbanites can understand why the taxes they pay that regulate farmers and ranchers affects them directly, but I'm not so sure the cattle rancher thinks the same way about how his taxes are spent in the city. How do urban community centers and needle exchange programs help farmers grow better crops?