Phi for All

How is it helpful to make such vague and broad judgements against any of the actors in today's world environment? It would be nice if things were so easy to pigeonhole, but most things happen on a spectrum, and most things are much more highly nuanced than simple conspiracy can address. How about drilling down to some meaningful arguments?

So what? Does that mean we can't work towards a better goal? We can set up the world like that if more people thought it was possible.

It's my hope that those folks still love the country, and don't want a POTUS who burns our best spies and gives away our satellite capabilities for no gain. The base may be focused on perceived problems with domestic issues, but I don't think they're as pro-Russian as Trump seems to be. They may approve strongmen, but a traitor is a traitor.

You'd REALLY need to get rid of the Electoral College before this could be considered fair at all. Even then, I think it would overly mute the influence of those smaller states.

It's a galling fact that Trump will probably never serve time in jail because his predecessor will hopefully be more concerned with healing than revenge. Ironically, it will be the same democratic conventions that Trump pisses all over that will save him. Bigger people won't call to "lock him up", and I'm sure he sees that as weakness. What a stain on the country.

! Moderator Note Our rules state that members should be able to participate in discussions without clicking links or watching videos. We're not here to promote your channel. What did you wish to discuss?

Good article in The Atlantic by Pete Wehner about Trump's disordered personality, and how we've got to stop being shocked by the disturbing things he says and does and start working to remove this damaged soul from an office he's completely unsuited for. He's only getting worse.

You need to write a book about what TV shows you're watching. Or post this in What Are You Watching?

As Janus points out, you couldn't generate enough lift for a regular car to fly this way, let alone a car also engineered to move on/under water. Also, being part of the generation that was told we'd all be in flying cars by now, I've had plenty of time to rethink the whole idea of commuters flying around the cities. People can be horrible 2D drivers, and I don't see that improving with another degree of freedom. Collisions are worse when you add gravitational acceleration. What circumstances or jobs do you see this vehicle being a better choice for? When does one need to use so many different modes of transportation? Are there many situations where you need to fly till you hit land, then drive to a body of water where you can use your boat functions? Couldn't you just fly to the body of water and skip driving? I see this like carrying around a big multitool in my pocket. It's great to have so many options, but I'm probably going to use the knife blade and the screwdriver the vast majority of the time. Meanwhile, I'm always lugging around the corkscrew and the leather punch and the metal saw and the wire crimper.... As zapatos points out, when we try to combine too much tech into one piece, it often fails to function as well as the individual pieces did. My phone is pretty state of the art, but it's not as good a camera/alarm/game system/reader/or even phone as individual pieces I've had.

Please describe this mechanism. How does a tire, which needs to grip tightly to the wheel with no slippage so it can be inflated, allow a wheel to "start rotating within the tires"? A big problem here is that any kind of propeller has a completely different function than any kind of wheel/tire. Displacing fluids is an entirely different engineering problem from maintaining traction, so asking the same device to do both is problematic.

We're trying to help you refine and improve your idea. You need more than "innovation" to account for the way humans evolved to walk upright. Every animal on the planet is capable of new behavior. Even unicellular organisms can react to new environments. Humans are able to access a broader range of innovative behavior because we can take the same information other animals get and put it together in more meaningful, more predictive, more adaptive ways because of our higher levels of intelligence, cooperation, and communication. Also, while logic has its place in maths and sciences, I think you're talking about critical thinking, or reasoned thinking rather than formal logic. It also isn't correct to refer to "proof" when you mean "evidence". That can turn a perfectly supportive statement into an assertion that needs more than an opinion. The members here respect the difference between "evidence suggests humans walked upright to free up their hands for tool use", and "human evolution is fundamentally different from that of other animals".

Intelligent human predators learned that herd animals can stampede when a bunch of hunters charge the herd on two feet, waving their arms, and making lots of noise. Must have been pretty scary looking to a quadruped, and is yet another example of the potential benefits of moving on just two of your four limbs. We can make ourselves look a LOT bigger.

There is evidence that early humans drove certain types of prey to the edges of cliffs so they'd fall to their deaths. No weapons needed. It's a pretty intelligent hunter that can get an animal to kill itself.

! Moderator Note When your possible test results are ready, or you have ANY evidence to support your assertions, please PM a staff member and we'll re-open the thread. Otherwise, there's too much hand-waving and not enough science for it to stay open. You need to step up the rigor.

This seems like you're purposely trying to misunderstand. When you're talking about the SURFACE of a sphere, you're only talking about two of its three dimensions, OK?

Because we aren't talking about the insides of it, or of the Earth, just the surface.

I was talking with family about a friend's upcoming wedding, and I put forward the idea that instead of the bride spending BIG money on a one-time use wedding dress (no, your daughter probably won't want to wear your old one), while the groom rents a tuxedo, it would be a much better tradition to buy the bride either a sharp designer outfit for business or a designer dress she can wear to fancy occasions for the next several years. Buy the groom an Armani suit and he'll have something fantastic to wear for quite a while. Horrible bridesmaid dresses could be a thing of the past. Of course, this assumes you're not already wealthy enough to spend thousands of dollars on an outfit. My question to you is, do you think it would have made a difference in your own life if you'd had an outfit when you were 20 that made you look and feel like a million bucks? I remember dissing formal wear when I was younger and couldn't afford it (sour grapes?), and I've never been much of a clothes-horse. But I also remember those early times when I had to wear a tux, and I remember feeling fantastic. If you owned an outfit like that, don't you think you'd be more apt to seek out places and events to wear it?

The only parts that seem incompatible are the "religious" and "supporter of Donald Trump" parts. A religious person shouldn't approve of someone who lies so much. Even if you judge only by actions while in office, Trump is a really sad, serial liar. A person who lies continually about big and little issues isn't practicing any kind of spirituality. I don't know why anyone who claims to be religious would condone such behavior, unless they fear minorities more than they love truth. Every time Trump claims he's a really smart, stable genius, he always misses a great opportunity to prove it with his next words. When a truly smart, well-educated person's intelligence or expertise is questioned, the last thing they do is simply tell you how smart and qualified they are. What they do is to show you how smart and qualified they are, usually by relaying some pertinent and applicable information that only a smart, well-educated person would have. Trump NEVER does that. He just doubles down on how much smarter he is than everybody else, how he's the greatest expert and nobody knows as much as he. No proof, no expert information, just hot air.

What is the consequence of this? When talking about spacetime as a coordinate system, the spatial dimensions (length, width, height) are bidirectional, meaning the degrees of freedom they represent go in both directions. The time component of spacetime is unidirectional. It only goes forward. What is the consequence of time moving forward but looping back on itself?

Completely unnecessary. Studiot, being from the UK, used Scotch tape instead of electrical tape. His eyebrows just shot up, and he's laughing uproariously. Now he stopped laughing and he's frowning and pushing his chair back....

It's a pretty continual vaporization process over the life of the bulb. If there was a LOT of tungsten residue, the bulb could have been an older style that used a vacuum inside the bulb instead of inert argon. Argon greatly reduces the loss of tungsten atoms to heat, but there's always a bit of evaporation going on.

We can apply our Diplomacy, Idiocy, and Vulgarity filters to folks like Boris and Donald, but then everything they say is converted to, "Viewing Forums Index".

We can disable the Diplomacy Filters, but then the popup says things like, "Scratching Itchy Area" and "Screaming at Neighbor" and "Having Another Whiskey". We THOUGHT we were doing you a favor....

I sort of understand where you're coming from, but you're taking a fairly strict interpretation of "belief" as faith or wishful thinking. To me, if you believe something, it just means you generally take it as true. It's how you arrived at that belief that's important.

The evolution of the human hand influenced the tools we were able to utilize, not the other way around. We first used rocks as hammers because they fit in our hands so well with our opposable thumbs (they still do). Rocks broke into sharp shards, and then we had knife blades, which also fit our hands well. But both of these tools worked more efficiently, and fit the hand even better when we developed handles to protect our hands, extend our reach, and provide a better physical angle for the work we performed with them. The tools developed, but their impact on the evolution of the human hand hasn't had enough time to make the fundamental changes you've implied. We can use a LOT of tools well because of our hands, but those tools didn't shape our hands. We chose them because they fit the jobs and our hands. Crows can use sticks to pick up other things and fly away with both, but it's because the stick works well with their beaks, not because the tool shaped their beaks. Does that make sense? Weapons were held the way they were to gain the most advantage in their use. A rock can be held in the hand and swung hard to inflict damage, but the same exact hand can swing a rock tied to a stick with MUCH greater impact. The hand didn't need to change, the tool was made more efficient (hey look, an innovation!).