Phi for All

Aren't we still talking about forgiving the debt for the person who didn't pay their loan off? Wouldn't that have happened at a different time than the person who paid it off? I'm not sure how you're separating it. All those things are because of marketing. Ditto lugging around $200 textbooks in this day and age. If education were publicly funded, you could change the focus back to learning. I had hoped to make a point about how taxes for publicly funded K-16 education could take a previous college loan payment into account, and give the guy who paid his loan off a bit of a break. I sense you don't like all this socialist talk.

Probably, if it went down exactly as you put it. But if it was part of a program that was attempting to specifically address the predatory nature of the loans in your state as opposed to mine, probably not. It's easy to find private ownership models where public or state involvement is either undesirable or actively detrimental. Personally, I feel the same way about education and a public ownership model. Educating the public should be a publicly funded investment in ourselves, so the focus in schools is where it should be, and not on turning a profit for private actors. If we truly want to spread knowledge to our people, we should be leery of how a focus on profit skews that.

The media outlet with the largest viewership/highest ratings in the US is calling the Dems request for "additional" witnesses "desperate". Nobody on FOX News pointed out the hypocrisy of refusing to turn over evidence and then claiming the Dems had no evidence. Their consensus is this whole thing is a non-starter because it's just an attempt to overthrow the 2016 election. I've heard this phrase every week for the last several months.

Is the resentment mostly because it's about cashy-money instead of something else? As iNow pointed out, you wouldn't resent someone who got better medical treatment than you did because of advancements in knowledge. We may grumble but we understand it when a friend gets more features when he buys the same car we bought 3 years ago. But people's attitudes change a lot when money is involved.

Aren't those figures using the driving rate for both forms of travel? Do helicopter commuters also spend 780 hours per year in the chopper?

He didn't know their nickname for him, prostofilya, means "patsy" or "dupe". Trump thought it meant he liked hookers.

Have you ever driven in LA? I worked with some folks who lived less than 5 miles from the office, but because they had to get on the I-10 or the I-405, it took 45 minutes by car. Personally, I also think map apps in an enormous traffic system like LA's cause erratic tie-ups. You get notified that your route just went red, so you jump to an alternate route, but everybody else gets told the same thing, and your alternate is suddenly snarled leaving you with no better options. This isn't about rich people in helicopters. This is about a tragic accident that happened to some famous individuals. There's a reason behind it, even if the loss seems senseless.

We only spambanned them because the robot left out, "Don't forget to drizzle some on your huevos tomorrow for breakfast!" This is why we still need people.

Trump: "Where were you guys?" Parnas: "We was wit' you, at Rigoletto's!"

Airbrush, I agree with Raider5678 completely on this. Sometimes you engage in the kind of extraordinary speculation we require extraordinary evidence for on a science forum, and too often it involves motives you can't possibly know. There are SO MANY valid criticisms of this administration, and I think you're only feeding trolls by straying from the facts. Exaggeration and misleading vividness are not the tools of reasonable people.

Very light foam around a small iron ball? That's what I was thinking. Not sure how sophisticated it would need to be, but I imagine the technology is available now. A computer might be able to use all these forces together to achieve a fairly natural-looking illusion of randomness while actually controlling the ball to a fair degree.

How difficult would it be to design an electromagnetic system behind the wall so the ball ends up in the same place no matter where it starts? With current technology, could it be made to look natural?

I disagree. I think every response so far accepts that you don't think a matriarchal society would have any innovation and would stagnate. YOU aren't grasping what they're telling you, that it's more likely that innovation is a human trait, and women would display it in proportion if they were in charge. There is PLENTY of precedent throughout history, and even more in our current day.

If you could fake a video of exactly this, it would be a good perspective on the difficulty in removing chaos from a system. With the proper buildup, it would also be hilarious.

We're tickled pink you're willing to share your good-natured brilliance for ANOTHER 1000 posts. You're so good at keeping your cool in the face of willful ignorance.

... giving the WH and the Republicans ample evidence that the Dems are trying to manipulate the election. I'm sure they're itching to use their favorite tactic, accuse the other side of doing what you're doing.

Whether intentional or not, the effect is the same. We've seen these tactics before, and we know how they work. The "skeptic" gets to ignore evidence, question established science with only incredulity, and then weep big tears when told they're soapboxing or using logical fallacies. It's an attempt to establish the rule of "heads I win, tails you lose". It's a shame if there's really no bad intent, but we can't know that, so treating this as manipulation seems a pretty safe bet. It's like when we get a poster showing Dunning-Kruger confidence in their poor scientific knowledge. It doesn't matter in the end that they truly believe what they've made up, it still comes off as trolling or preaching.

I had hoped we could discuss this here, as per the rules. You haven't persuaded me in the least that this is something worth going offsite for. I have LOTS of reading to do, but I take time to discuss science via the written word as part of a social interaction. Can't YOU tell me, in your own words, why you feel this concept has predictive powers? You can quote from the article if you like, but please explain how a flow of wealth unites economics with physics.

A black hole is most definitely a thing. Spacetime is a continuum. Three spatial dimensions and a temporal one, to designate any place/time in the universe. I can give you 2 coordinates for longitude and latitude for a place on Earth, and together with an altitude and a time, we can meet for lunch on the 40th floor of the Empire State Building. Looking at dimensions this way helps show how mass/energy curves spacetime in a way we feel as gravity.

Excuse me, your examples showing a "predictive nature" leave me confused. How exactly does this idea predict anything? Your use of "flow" seems to be so generalized as to be meaningless, like word salad. "The flow of wealth unites economics with physics in hierarchical distributions." Please persuade me that this has a scientific basis.

Can I borrow a liter of it? How much mass do dimensions have?

Gosh, that sounds swell. I'm sure it was just as you say, and everyone who was a nerd was nice. Thanks for sharing that.

! Moderator Note Don't ever do this in a mainstream science section again. This is completely inappropriate for Climate Science.

Eventually, creationists do more damage when we entertain their delusions. Other people reading their ignorance may not understand if it isn't shut down hard. We used to patiently explain here too, until we realized the creationists never learned, and they never stopped using arguments that were thoroughly debunked. Almost by definition, creationists are intellectually dishonest in their "reasoning". We don't have a lot of patience for willingly obtuse behavior. If a person wants to learn, we're all over that. If you want to buck the mainstream, go right ahead as long as you've got the supportive evidence for your arguments. I want you to remember this. As far as climate change is concerned, the scientists here have been forced to deal with fringe opinions that are asserted as if half the discipline agrees with them. The media presents almost all arguments these days as if half the people are on one side and half on the other, screaming across the middle. It's very compelling entertainment, but it fails to inform the public about this very, very important issue. It fails to show how few people there are opposing AGW who don't have a vested interest in fossil fuels. I hope you'll forgive some vitriol when an ignorant person repeats a long debunked argument as if it's gospel.

I thought this was for a new HGTV woodworking show, my bad. Carry on.