Phi for All

Perhaps using this kind of negative generalization as a basis for starting a complex discussion is unwise. It's possible to dislike how someone behaves without wishing them ill-health. Some people use their emotions to judge people, and others use observation and context. Assuming I don't approve of something this POTUS does because I don't LIKE him is ridiculous. I can judge him by his attitudes towards public ownership, and his actions I disagree with (doling out public lands to friends, inhumane immigration policies, a general dislike of expert knowledge, his attitude towards women, et cetera, ad nauseum). Also, Randyjohnson, I'm fine with wishing the president a swift recovery from his illness, as well as hoping he rots in hell for all the pussy-grabbing he's done, all the citizens he's killed with his inaction, and all the shame he's brought upon the country. What's unbelievable to me is a person of prayer like you thinking so highly of such a moral stain of a man. Are you a pussy-grabber too?

I get nervous when I ride in packed subway trains, and I find that yelling out my biggest fears helps me overcome them. I wish you were in charge, because I keep getting arrested whenever I scream "FIRE" or "POISON GAS" or "SNAKES". I'm only trying to show who I am by expressing myself this way. Why do they keep taking away my freedom of speech?

! Moderator Note A major hijack has (finally, sorry) been split off. Unfortunately, the discussion was so full of willful ignorance and misinformation that I couldn't find a better place for it than the Trash. Please carry on with discussion of the OP.

He's an example of the extremist capitalists most of the run-of-the-mill politicians work for. He just cut out the middleman, and now he's draining the swamp right into our own living rooms. When our root problem is extremist billionaires who don't care about our society, why make one of them chief?

This statement is extremely hypocritical, uncivil, and reflects poorly on your reasoning skills, imo.

Beware Skitt's Law. An ellipsis is three dots, not two. Also, there should be commas before "at" and "not", and you should be using double quote marks, not single.

But violators represent a HUGE opportunity for private profit. The police department would basically be defunded, and traffic enforcement would be taken off their plate and given to private security. There are already examples of how lucrative it can be for a private company to issue tickets for running a traffic light, especially when you control the timing of the lights.

If We (the People) take the perspective of owners instead of consumers of a service, we see that possession of the roads is an extremely strong bargaining chip. Owning something should give us more clout, unless we let con men take that away If We own the roads, We can demand a single-payer option for healthcare insurance, and charge extra for the healthcare industry to use the highways until they help us get one. Roads are power, see Rome. .

A separate private company is set up to cover promotion and payments to the various road owners, and commuters simply pay the separate company (let's call it Roadmaster, like buying tickets through Ticketmaster). You get a monthly electronic "pass" like any toll road. That ensures all the owners get a guaranteed cut, and the consumer pays extra for the convenience, to cover Roadmaster's costs. And if the roads are truly privately owned, and get no publicly funded maintenance subsidies, the owners would quickly revert back to curing their asphalt properly by NOT letting anyone drive on it for 90 days. Then they'll really see profits increase.

I didn't say faith was the benchmark. You use "degrees of certainty", and the folks I know who claim to be the most religious all believe in their god using faith. It's supposed to represent 100% certainty that the Christian god of the Bible exists, no matter what anyone or anything else says. In the US, a great many profess enough faith to say they're absolutely certain the god of the Bible exists. The details may vary, and some claims aren't as deeply held as others, but the idea of believing "with all your heart" that there is a god is common in the States. I would think that at least would hold true even for the CoE. When you add Jesus into the mix, you lose some folks in the US, but others are just as 100% certain that Jesus is watching them to see if they have enough faith in him to get into heaven. This doesn't seem wrong to you? Faith is usually defined as accepting a truth or proposition that has no evidence to support it. I acknowledge a difference between having faith in something (the old car will get me through another winter), and having religious faith in something you believe will ensure an eternal afterlife. Perhaps that's where we aren't agreeing?

! Moderator Note Please don't bring this subject up again, since you're unable to support it within the context of our rules.

But the faith-driven believer is 100% certain, and you'll never be more than 99.9%, so that's not a good benchmark. I think how you arrive at your certainty is the key here. Do you just have a gut-feeling about it that won't go away, or have you rigorously researched, observed, tested, discussed, and predicted enough about the subject that you've come to trust the explanation?

Believing anything based on faith alone is antithetical to a methodology that needs to trust only empirical evidence. That's always been a sticking point for me. The religious folks I know are joyously proud that they believe using just their faith. They claim it's strong and abiding, and the more blasphemers claim there is no God, the stronger their faith and certainty becomes. To me, if we aren't using our reasoning powers to explain things, then we're using our emotions to convince ourselves we're right. I think it's easier but less intelligent to let ourselves be led like that. Using our brains to move beyond our primitive reactions is always harder, but it's always our best long-term investment.

I think the difference in people's minds is one of profession. I'm a writer and a barista and a scientist and chef and a builder, but I don't get paid to do those things.

! Moderator Note John2020, I would suggest you go back through the thread and pay close attention. You've had three pages of objections and problems with your device that haven't been addressed adequately for the Speculations section. You need to support your ideas with evidence, and address the reasonable objections you're getting. The people involved are only trying to help, but you seem more interested in teaching something wrong than in learning something right. I hid your last post with the links to past experiments, since it was completely off-topic. If you're going to swim against the mainstream, you need to be more rigorous. Thread closed.

Actually, a tick can sense a LOT, mostly body heat and smell (I believe they're attracted to ammonia in sweat). They try to latch on to you with their front legs, then crawl towards skin. I suppose they might have different behavior when on a flat surface, but since they need to latch on to their dinner, it doesn't seem likely they're trying to flea. 😁

Which was another attempt to say you're sorry for an even earlier account called CricStands, where you spammed us with fake titles to the same cricket advertisement. Why would we EVER want that again?

All but your own.

We may have different definitions of "rude". A language I don't understand has almost no chance of seeming "rude" to me.

I wouldn't trust R to draw a bucket up from a well. The best R can do is draw flies. Clearly R can't be trusted with graphs.

The correct word is "different". In the US, it's the custom for people shopping for clothes to take them from the rack into a dressing room to try them on. We don't have to ask first because in the US, "the customer is always right". In France, it's considered polite to ask the shop keeper first, because it's their store and they're the expert. Different societies (with different languages) have different conventions for behavior. Some languages can sound harsh to foreign ears. People speaking German often sound angry to me, while people speaking Arabic or Cantonese often sound excited. I think that's just me trying to make someone else's speech patterns fit my American English sensibilities. How we deal with accents is cultural as well. I grew up watching movies where the villains spoke English with German or Russian accents, so folks who speak like that can be intimidating. The posh British accent is almost branded in the US as "intellectual".

Oh, please, you have a rubber chicken collection! Your pants have an attachment for a seltzer nozzle! And what about your Monday morning standups when the gang at the USNO gathers around the atomic fountain? I heard you offered to laminate a major general's pocket protector at the DARPA convention. And there are rumors about you in a red tie, some Cheese-Nip dust, and a spot-on impression of the C-in-C using a public toilet.

If the account was Flagged as Spammer (as opposed to being banned for rules violations), I think everything goes away. It's a 2-click solution for blatant spammers. Hyper would know for sure.

This is another assertion that can be disproven. Actually, science looks for the best supported explanation, NOT the truth. Truth is too subjective, and changes depending on who is judging what is true. Theory is better than "answers", because we constantly update our theories based on experiments, predictions, and observations. But when we think we've found an "answer" (Truth), we stop looking any further. I'm not sure why you think our current cosmological model means your god doesn't exist. The LCDM model doesn't cover how or why the universe was created, only the expansion and evolution from a very hot, dense state. As an omnipotent deity, couldn't your god have taken an unstable prior universe (we can't know if there was a prior universe), given it three spatial and one temporal dimension, and then allow it to expand and evolve into what we now observe? Gods choose to be unobservable, at least by scientific means, since we can't summon them or get them to do anything we can predict. We have great explanations for most phenomena WITHOUT using gods. Science finds no evidence to support god(s), but since we can't observe them, science also doesn't say they don't exist. Science deals with the natural world, and gods are, by definition, SUPERNATURAL. Who says that? Give me their names and I'll see that they're punished for these lies! You, of course, will be blessed for telling the truth. I have better books. Books with REALLY useful things, and nothing about where to buy my slaves, and who I'm allowed to rape.

An assertion like this is easily disproven with a single example. Learning science helped me see that deities aren't needed to explain what we observe, and religion isn't required as a moral foundation.