Phi for All

I have to disagree here. I think Russian influence made the difference in both the Brexit vote and the US presidential election. Both were just that close, and whether or not the feelings were present is immaterial. Those feelings were exploited by Putin's troll farms and pro-authoritarian/anti-immigrant media campaigns with the intent to disrupt and skew. I don't think the UK would have voted to leave the EU, and the US wouldn't have elected Trump, without the Russian involvement. When a bad actor knows just the right buttons to push to goad someone into a fight, and they do it and a riot ensues, we hold them responsible for incitement, right?

I thought it was pretty well known that Russia used similar tactics in the UK and the US. http://www.newsweek.com/brexit-russia-presidential-election-donald-trump-hacker-legitimate-527260

To be fairer, in the US we have little access to news without an entertainment/political profit/private investment agenda. The folks who make it easy for the authoritarians struggle for information that doesn't lead them right back to where they are. And yes, it's a known tactic, but it's everywhere now, and it's being exploited like never before in modern times. It's pretty biblical for invaders to drive out the undesirables and force their neighbors to deal with them, further stressing the resources of the next target of invasion.

Aye, there's the rub. They own the media, they own the political machine, they own the entertainment, and they manage to steal enough of our numbers through lies, promises, threats, and misconceptions to stay in power. What we're asking is fairly simple and reasonable, and it gets drowned out in the blare, and the need for outrageousness we've cultivated as a culture.

The authoritarians are extremely wealthy, using the Republicans to achieve control over free markets. The more they get, the richer they make themselves at the expense of everyone else. It's rumored Putin is worth four Bill Gates. The fear these monsters are injecting into the world is helping them gain access to even more power and money, and eroding all the protections we have against 100% capitalism, where they own the streets and sidewalks and all the land attached, and 99% of humanity will just rent their whole lives. First they stirred up the Middle East, and now they scream in fear about all the refugees fleeing the region. It reminds me of a business model I saw where the principals of an architectural firm also owned a pest control business. These folks knew where construction would likely cause infestations in the surrounding neighborhoods, and had their exterminators go door to door scaring people about bug problems.

I would posit they're the same thing, or at the least they're inseparable in the minds of believers. How could a god be capable of doing EVERYTHING without knowing EVERYTHING? Do you claim there is a way for a god to know all without being able to do all? It's all basically claiming the Abrahamic god has unlimited power, and is capable of anything. In this particular case, these two words mean the same thing. What about Genesis 2, where he tells Adam that the day he eats from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the day he'll surely die? Surely... die. Using the Hebrew words that imply he'll be killed, rather than dying of something. Which didn't happen, which an omniscient god would already know wasn't going to happen, so the god is obviously capable of lying. So omnipotence doesn't imply your god can change the physical attributes of the observable universe? God can't do the impossible like snap his fingers and make gravity behave differently? Or stop a known chemical reaction from happening predictably?

I knew a guy like this once! He'd go to clubs and lie about himself to women. They sensed his dishonesty and bowed out of conversations with him, and eventually he'd leave, complaining how phony and useless all the women at the club were. I knew his parents, and I don't think this is genetics related. Sorry I couldn't help with the black curly, brown wavy, blond straight, bald hair problem. I'll just bow out here.

Off the top of my head, I'd say lose some weight. Choose fewer complex carbohydrates from grains, and fewer fats to control caloric intake, and exercise a little more. Eat less sugars. Lipid transfer through the bloodstream depends on lipoproteins (similar to the ones that cart your cholesterol around), and higher insulin levels are known to cause receptors to withdraw requests for lipids from the bloodstream, causing them to be stored or even fall to thicken arterial walls. Like cholesterol, we get triglycerides in two ways: from food we eat, and by manufacturing it ourselves cellularly. Have your doctor check liver, kidney, and thyroid functions, and also any medications you may be taking (beta-blockers can increase triglycerides).

... when faith gets there first. When you think with your emotions before using your reason ("I can't explain something, so there must be a loving, omniscient god!"), you run into all sorts of conflicts with the natural world, and end up using ever more emotional thinking ("The god I love killed a whole bunch of people, so they must have been planning evil in the future!") to explain it all. When you use reason first, you can trust that your emotions are being used wisely. It should be second nature in humans to guard against being led astray by our feelings (since it's SO easy to do), but unfortunately it's not. Instead, we have to train ourselves to be skeptical, rational, intelligent beings.

Why, because you say so? Several people have shown you examples of how omniscience violates free will. All you've done is deny their examples, with no supportive evidence of your own. If you want to show us, why don't you try? Could God know everything? No, of course not. [See how that's not a very good argument?] Could God know everything? So far, nobody has ever had a limb regrown by God. No amputees have ever miraculously had their leg or arm regenerate, even though we know the cell mechanisms to do so are fast becoming within the reach of our own medicine. Many people claim their god cured their cancer or other disease, but based on historical evidence, we have to conclude that either gods don't know how to regrow limbs (which means they aren't omniscient), or for some reason they don't much like amputees, even though this is never mentioned in religious writings.

Definitely a disadvantage, especially if it affects sleep. Have you tried growing it LOTS longer than 3 inches? I think most people have a personal tolerance level for the feel of their hair. My hair feels OK real short, and it's good real long too, but, at a certain length in between those two, patches of my hair look like a cow licked me. Growing it longer makes that go away, mostly. Can't help you here. As you said, it's an aesthetic preference. As such, it means you may dislike it while others pay big money to have a professional with years of experience make it look like that. The problem may not be with the hair, but rather with your perspective of it. Genetically, it would be awesome in this modern environment to have hair that looked interesting with minimal cost and effort. If I were you, I would communicate with some hair professionals, explain the way yours behaves, and see if any of them sounds like they know exactly how to help.

! Moderator Note Off-topic post involving aliens and the supernatural hidden. Let's stay on topic here, and let's stay mainstream.

Omniscience would mean God knows everything, but we know He doesn't know how to regrow an amputated limb, so how can He be omniscient?

Oh, you're EVIL! You know how much I want to google that now. You're welcome. You may not think of it as normal, but have you ever considered that, if one were able to design the best human head of hair, your pattern gives a very broad range of possible advantages? Does it have any disadvantages?

Hopefully (in the US, at least), folks will start to realize that conservative measures have been taken to the extremes, and it's suffocating our citizenry unnecessarily. If BUI were adopted first (or forced through under strong GOP/Libertarian opposition), I don't think universal healthcare or free higher education would have a chance. If, on the other hand, we impose an Eisenhower-like graduated tax on the wealthy, remove the age limit on Medicare, and fund a huge higher education/vocational training program for all, the benefits that accrue stand a better chance of convincing folks that a BUI (now less because healthcare and education won't cost) is the next reasonable step.

I think a more comprehensive change in the system is needed, more along the lines of free education through college and Medicare for all. If this happened first, I think a better system than BUI could be developed. I keep picturing dynamic modular housing around central meeting/eating areas with shuttles to schools, clinics, and transportation hubs. Set some minimum standards for better-than-subsistence living, so future officials can't mess with it. BUI would be assimilated better into our present system, which would make it more popular but also more vulnerable to current high levels of corruption. My reservations are all about potential problems though, and that shouldn't stop us from experimenting (fix an amount, give it to EVERYONE past a certain age, and don't let the politicians put self-serving language into the bill). BUI would mean a real hope finally arrived for so many people. Whether it becomes free or not, I get the feeling going back to school to learn the latest things is going to keep increasing in importance to many folks. Much easier to do with a basic income taken care of.

I don't see how sufficiency relates to the requirement of religion in forming or leading groups that you're imposing. You're still using the word necessary, as in "fuel is necessary to start a fire". Groups can form and be led without religion, therefore religion is not a requirement, not a necessity. I disagree with this, too. Many groups form around concepts and leaders that experience taught them to trust, rather than accept blindly through faith. Since those groups also tended to be more successful (if not more populated), reputation increased the value of belief through trust.

We're the vast majority. We're the folks concerned that, as the wealthiest 1% of humans continue to consolidate their wealth, our own spending power is diminished by a lack of competitive markets. We're the folks concerned that, as lobbying continues to provide an unrestricted access to lawmakers, extreme money is being used to suppress our wills, opportunities, and freedoms. And we just want to make sure everyone has the chance to shine without having privy pots intentionally dumped on them from above.

There's nothing genetically that can be done to change the child's parentage, so I'm not sure why you're asking here. Does the conservative family know you chose artificial insemination, but not who the donor is, or do they think you conceived through the fertility treatments? If they know the sperm but not the donor, then any resemblances can be called coincidental. If they won't accept anything but normal conception, then there's nothing you can do. And if they accept artificial insemination but not from your dh's friend, then obviously they object because you didn't choose one of them instead. I think it's a bit late for your husband to be upset about this. You had 14 years to decide how much you want a child. Where he came from is hardly more important than how much you love him now he's here.

I think many see giving cash as a dignified way to help. It would seem to give the individual the most freedom in choosing what they want to spend it on. But many of the people receiving this BUI aren't good at decisions with cash. It's no slight to them, we can't all be good at everything, and many folks think with their heart before using their brain. If you know someone needs food, giving them the money to buy food doesn't mean they get fed. Ultimately, this should be about freedom. As much freedom as a person can get after agreeing to live in a society. But it's also about removing the influence of extreme wealth, and giving cash seems counterproductive to that. The public solution is to make as much available as possible, like access to swimming pools, great art, park lands, recreation centers, education, healthcare, vocational training, counseling, housing, nutrition, and more, using the power of public funding devoid of profit motives to give the citizenry the most bang for our buck. He's a citizen asking a question, not making a pronouncement.

Probably not. It's summer break for many students, and we don't get as much traffic. This is the first time I've had a chance to see this thread. You obviously know your hair types, and why each does what it does. Many folks have a mixture of hair types on their heads. There are some chemicals and hormones that can alter hair on an individual, but mostly it's just genetic expression of your ancestry. But that seems like too obvious an answer. Are you asking why the hair isn't in patches of similar hair types, but instead fairly evenly mixed and distributed? There could be physical reasons. Curly/wavy hair is a better absorber of shocks to the head, but straight hair allows more oils to reach the ends. A blend gives the benefits of multiple hair types.

As in "Will this work?" or as in "What kind of work will you do to earn this BUI?" I thought the concept was a direct investment into the citizenry that would eventually be paid for by less need for systems of justice and punishment. Universal income shouldn't be tied to what you can work at, but rather the freedoms one gives up by agreeing to societal strictures. "Follow the rules and you'll have the basics you need to live", that sort of thing. Am I wrong?

Ruh roh, Raggy!

This assumes it's more effective to increase their ability to eat a fish than it is to make sure they have a fish to eat. Is it more effective for a program to empower everyone with the ability to purchase, or to ensure they have access to basic needs?

I'm reminded of the difference between giving a person a fish and teaching them to fish, and this seems more like giving them the money to buy a fish, and hoping that's what they do with it. I remember reading where a good percentage of people would opt to keep the money taken out for Social Security if they could, defeating the whole purpose of the program. I've had experience with people who get a $5,000 check from insurance for a new roof, and spend it elsewhere (which means the next hail storm leaves them without a means to fix it). If this is a safety net of sorts, I'd like to make sure it's very effective.