Phi for All

! Moderator Note Moved to Evolution, Morphology, and Exobiology.

! Moderator Note You need some science to discuss in the science sections. And you need supportive evidence for the Speculations section, so I'm moving this to the Lounge. Remember we're a science discussion forum. This reads more like a blog post.

Simply overcome quantum degeneracy pressure.

Are you proposing some kind of speculative process for this? I assume you're listing your own "wishes". What do you wish to discuss? What's stopping you from extracting samples from those on your list? Why would any of them be considered "rare"?

There are men from every generation that are taught respect for people in general. Too many are not. You never impugned my gender in your rants, and it's unlikely you'd do the same if you heavily disagreed with Hyper. There's nothing wrong with being aggressive in your stances if it's done respectfully. When I worked construction, it was piecework. The hourly workers could afford to leer at women or talk smack about them, but I only made money when I completed projects. My experience probably wasn't representative of what you're talking about. And my parents, while fairly old-school about gender roles, would have come down on me like a ton of bricks if they ever heard me speaking disrespectfully about women in particular. Most of my negative experience in mixed offices was that the women's duties often gravitated towards fixing what men had broken, or on duties the men didn't want to do. I admit to a certain amount of youthful obliviousness regarding women's roles in the workplace, but once I realized all the guys were leaving all the general cleanup to the women in the office, I pointedly started washing everyone's coffee cups myself. It was funny to see guys come into the break room, start to comment on what I was doing, then realize they were about to suggest that one of the female salespeople could do that for me. Most stopped themselves from mentioning it, but some couldn't. This sounds right, but in practice I think an argument should be able to stand completely on its own. Right or wrong, I would expect any argument presented respectfully to be addressed similarly, without any preconceived notions about my gender, education, sexual persuasion, experience, political leanings, age, or anything else that isn't part of my argument.

I'm not interested in attracting those attracted to alt-History. It's been pointed out that there are a lot of people with hateful agendas who would like to revise certain historical perspectives.

Only when you bring it up out of context, perhaps as a deflection technique or a way to gain sympathy. It certainly shouldn't matter if your posts are focused on the topic and you aren't breaking any rules. Like iNow, I've seen members clearly change their whole tone when they realize they're discussing science with a woman. I've seen them be respectful to hypervalent_iodine as a chemistry expert, then I've seen where they'd visited her profile and found out she's a woman (when she had it listed) and their whole demeanor towards her changed negatively. She's not the first female staff member to experience hateful treatment that the male staff never see. Members may call me lots of names, but they all have to do with my opinions and knowledge (or lack thereof). I don't get people using sexual epithetes demeaning my gender in response to a science post.

I think you purposely oversimplified this. People had the option to include their gender from a limited pulldown menu that seemed insensitive to modern gender classifications. Hyper's change removed the limitations. What's the problem with this?

! Moderator Note The problem is, you can't explain it sufficiently to anyone else. If you can't do that, you aren't doing science. We're 4 pages into this discussion, and it seems you're still bringing up concepts that were refuted in earlier posts. This type of one-step-forward, two-steps-back process doesn't work in the Speculations section. You need to adjust your idea to match observations about mainstream science others (well, one other) are making. Please go back through the thread and take all you've learned into account. In order for a speculative thread to progress, you need to build on what's known, and throw away what's been refuted. If you can't explain your idea so others can work with it, I'm going to shut the thread down. It's not fair to participants if you aren't going to listen.

This is what you get for secreting your photon generator under a wicker containment vessel.

The "I can tell what gender you are by the way you write" thread? Hard to imagine that being civil and respectful.

Oh, the irony! Our Dr Swanson is a working physicist with the US Naval Observatory. The evidence suggests he knows exactly what he's talking about.

Any belief given to the concept has a very low trustworthiness factor. As a scientific explanation for anything, it's more wishful thinking than anything else, at the present time. I prefer thinking in terms of trustworthiness, as opposed to seeking something that's "true". As a concept for fiction, it's very imaginative and opens up infinite possibilities for the writer. I wonder if the soap operas have latched onto the multiverse hypothesis. A character can only have so many evil twins in one universe....

A forerunner, but not THE forerunner, perhaps.

Don't let them. You'll invite a whole raft of unscrupulous ruffians into your mealtimes. It's also a ploy to make your publicly-funded health services look bad. Next they'll suggest the NHS needs to be run like a business. Maintain healthy food standards! It's a bit off-topic since it involves more than microwave foods, but another tactic being used to increase profits is to downsize your packaging just enough so it's not obvious, but charge the same. Our sugar is sold in 4# bags now instead of 5#. 16 crackers in a stack instead of 20. The microwave burritos are smaller to make their stats look better, and hopefully you'll eat two instead of one. The eternal quest for more and more profit is making the food industry decidedly weird in the US.

It's more like they're saying "We'll take that from here" after meeting at a relay race. When the supernatural can be explained naturally, science finally has a runner on the track.

I can't trust they are when so many regulations have been "relaxed" recently to provide a better environment for investment opportunities.

I think they are, but personally I avoid heavily processed foods where I can.

! Moderator Note It does seem like you're suggesting new ideas rather than asking questions about mainstream explanations. Moved to Speculations.

The religious can choose leeches over aspirin, but they don't get to make specious claims about aspirin's efficacy without being corrected. And shown why their argument about aspirin isn't scientific. But we can choose to say nothing about the leeches (until they make a scientific claim about them, that is).

A giant alien attacking humans may not be doing anything unethical, but a giant human attacking other humans is an evil monster. Do human ethics evaporate when size increases? Isn't that a bully's justification? Even aliens capable of building cities and vehicles are sophisticated enough that an ethical human shouldn't compare them to insects. The OP sounds like they enjoy playing Godzilla more than playing God.

So why did you post this video if you saw the danger?

I can feel my body retaining water just from reading that. Now the excess fluids are raising my blood pressure, and my heart is working OT. The extra work my arteries are doing now is causing them to stiffen, raising the chance of heart attack and stroke, and damaging the kidneys as well. Complete heart failure is imminent.

They'll go broke and choke the landfills before they die. If they're buying this stuff themselves, they must be doing well financially. If someone else is buying it for them, that person needs to learn to say no. The diet is horrible (the sodium in 6 cups of black olives and all those chips is waaaay over the daily limit), but why would anyone who is going to eat 6-7 ounces of cereal or 5-6 ounces of chips NOT use a normal bag (or buy your cereal at Costco and take advantage of the economy of scale)? The single serving (note the name) bags are very expensive and leave a lot of waste behind. If the lettuce is iceberg, there is little nutrition in the rest (the cereal is fortified with vitamins at least, but the sugar isn't great). I also don't think it's good for a person's self-esteem to eat that many bags of anything (every meal you technically eat to excess). I know kids often like tearing open bags (it's like opening presents), so I think you need to watch out for any bad associations there. Eating well is a gift, but overeating is decidedly NOT.

OK, I'm impressed, the eggs were better than I thought they'd be. Not better than pan-fried, just different in a good way. I nuked them for a couple minutes, stirred, then kept adding another minute between stirrings. Took five minutes total. Great texture, which was my big worry. I'll use fewer and more finely diced onions next time. I usually saute my onions and peppers before adding eggs to the pan, and though I buttered the dish in which I nuked the eggs to keep them from sticking, the flavor was good but not better than sauteing first, imo. I can see now that the biggest benefit to me is that I can make the rest of the meal in my own time, and when the family is all present and ready to dish up, I can do the eggs in a few minutes and serve them piping hot, which is the best way to eat them, imo. I also used less butter. The inherent timer works well with the cooking process, and you don't have to worry about what's happening to the bottom of your eggs if you take too long between stirrings. Happy to have my mind changed. Thanks, everyone!