Phi for All

I think once an institution adopts the disposables concept, it's difficult to accurately gauge whether they're better off without it. Certainly there are situations where the concept is tailor-made and highly successful. Equally clearly, once companies begin manufacturing sensible disposables, it becomes easier to accept those products that aren't so sensible, but follow the concept. I brought it up because I wondered if rising costs in the NHS weren't partially because more and more equipment is being converted to use disposable technology.

Scientific arguments are meant to persuade using critical thought and reasoning skills. That your ideas weren't accepted should tell you something about the foundations any proceeding statements would be built upon.

It can never be an honest discussion with your style. Your arguments go something like this: You: Black doesn't always have to be black. It can be brown as well, if you know how to look at it. Me: That makes no sense. We call the color black and define it as that specific color. If we call it brown too, it doesn't really help us, and is likely to confuse. Black isn't brown. You: But it can be. Me: Not in a meaningful way. It's different, and the differences are important in making distinctions between the two. You: But there is evidence that black can be brown. Me: Please show me. You: If you accept the fact into your worldview, black can be brown. Evidence! You're too busy claiming to be reasonable to listen to reason.

It seems like you in particular have serious comprehension issues, and you need to stop preaching here.

How is it "too fast"? I had a calculus professor who filled the chalkboards with equations and then started erasing (to write more) before we were finished copying them, and when we objected, she'd give us about five more seconds before she'd start erasing again without asking if we were done. She probably felt like she had a ton of ground to cover and wanted everyone on the same page quickly, but I found it extremely difficult and frustrating. If nobody else in the class is having trouble with "too fast", you should approach the professor during office hours. You're paying for this education, and it's important that you have a firm grasp of the subject. I think this is especially so with maths.

It's plain to see the way profit-as-the-priority corrupts public trusts that need to focus on how they benefit society. I think it's been responsible for many major decisions that might have been different without the private agenda. It probably deserves its own thread, but I'm curious how healthcare professionals view the single-use disposable strategy wrt medical paraphernalia. Is it really better/safer for the patient? Is it a time saver for the doctors and nurses, or do they spend just as much time on discarding everything after using it once? I've had first-hand experience with companies that sell machines that filter blood, and their entire business strategy is just like Nintendo: sell the expensive machines at cost (or below) and make your profit on the disposable bags and filters and whatnot (which are usually marked up hideously high). Is it this way with the NHS? Even tools like forceps aren't sterilized any more, they're used once and thrown away. Maybe it's just me, but I think the line between infection safety and cost effectiveness is slowly being erased rather than considered. Is your government like ours, where when the Republicans are in power, they staff certain agencies they don't like with people they know will run it into the ground and make it look bad (*cough* EPA *cough*)? I can't think of an equivalent for Democrats. They may call for less military spending (just like Eisenhower, Nixon, and HW Bush did), but they don't put an idiot in as Secretary of Defense and have him destroy the effectiveness of our armed forces.

Please tell me how it's courageous to ignore reason? The opposition he got was to his constant redefining of known terms, and for watering down the concept of faith so it could apply to any belief. I oppose such imprecision. This is a science discussion forum, and some people come here with an anti-mainstream science perspective. Of course they'll be opposed. Dismissal?! He was never dismissed. The reasoning for the opposition was given time and time again. You make it sound as if people simply said, "You're wrong" and left it at that. That's what being dismissed looks like. There's nothing courageous about this style of argument, always claiming there is sound evidence but never actually providing it, and insisting on definitions that leave plenty of wiggle room so any idea can be said to have support. I equate it with playground logic, where a kid can just reply "Nuh-uh" to any reasoning you give them.

Publicly-funded programs should never cater to private wishes for investment opportunity. That's not what those funds are for. All the tricks your "conservatives" are using are SOP in the US. Hobble the program, step on its throat, and make fun of how it can't stand on its own. It starts small and gets much worse. Our public Postal Service could put UPS and FedEx out of business in short order if they were allowed to do what any businessperson would do in their place. If they were allowed to buy their own planes instead of being forced to outsource to private carriers, the private carriers couldn't compete because they need too much profit. If the Postal Service were allowed to do money orders (since post offices are everywhere), companies like Western Union would be obsolete. Our public services often face far more regulation than what the private sector keeps crying about. Everywhere the Postal Service could use their vast reach effectively is being stomped on, and there are calls every day to privatize them.

Yes, for eating delicacies like ewe testicles, hippo wings, and vegan sashimi. It works on perpetual motion.

Every single person alive can guess this (even if a guess must be correct, every person is capable of guessing correctly). And no, some things are impossible. Try to use a 3D printer to make me a fork like this:

The moment when pay decouples from productivity is heartbreaking. Every business that did this made more profit at the expense of quality workers, and the country as a whole loses people who can participate in their own economy so some wealthy folks can be a bit wealthier. It's bad in most businesses. When the butcher cuts too close to the bone, or when the manufacturer decides to replace steel with plastic so things wear out faster, or when a job is dumbed-down to make it a least-paid position, the commitment to what the business was all about is reduced to profit only. In those cases, we see the quality of the consumer experience suffer greatly. Amazon gives me a much greater selection, and that means I get more opportunities for deals I'd never be aware of if I had to drive all over town or watch mailed circulars. I found a great water bottle for my wife, the kind with a small spout for drinking that unscrews to reveal a wider opening so you can add ice (we also add lemon, and some mint from the garden). They usually sell for around US$20, but I've seen them in stores for about the same, so I held off for a bit. The following week the price on three of the colors went down to $13, so I picked one up for my wife. Then I looked at a larger size for myself, and they were all $25 except for the red one, which was also marked at $13! Not sure if it was a mistake, overstock, or something else, but it's mine now, and we've been using these every day since. I'm not a huge consumer, but I appreciate quality and great service when I shop. I worry about what to do with all those brick and mortar stores going out of business as the big guys consolidate and merge. I know it's always changing and developing, but I worry that we're losing opportunities for socialization and not replacing them with anything. I think many folks these days would be happy never to leave the house, and just have everything they need delivered to their door.

Is there an obvious source to either of these? Is the inefficiency a product of publicly-funded programs? In the US, when it comes to public funding, corruption seems most likely to happen where those programs interact with privately-funded concerns. How does your healthcare corruption manifest itself?

Magic doesn't exist. But education, free education available to every human who wants access to accumulated human knowledge, is a silver bullet to destroy fear and ignorance. I think the cascade of reason that would result could be astonishing.

"Heft" should have its own category in this discussion, because it's a factor in the differences between online and in-store shopping (at least for bigger ticket items). I use heft and precision as quality indicators for products I know I'll use a great deal, and am therefore looking for the best quality I can afford. It's often hard to tell online how much precision went into making something to give it that satisfying heft I'm looking for. Occasionally the reviews will reveal someone who speaks heft, and they'll talk about the appropriate weight of the piece, the way it fits perfectly to hand, and the precision of its workings. Of course, once I know how important heft is to a certain manufacturer, I can trust their products just about anywhere I can buy them. Even online. The feel probably should be less important to me since we can return most items if not satisfied, with both Amazon and the brick store. But I hate returning merchandise. It sucks having to ship Amazon stuff back, and store returns suck since I'm more likely to stay and shop more because I invested in the drive. Maintaining a physical shop of any kind requires a level of service within the community that online retailers can't match, imo. You have to go above and beyond when you're part of the landscape of your town and its citizens. The sellers on Amazon can change their name and keep selling if they get too many bad reviews, but signing a five-year lease on a shop tells me this seller has a plan to succeed that includes pleasing the community they're part of.

The plastic arm on the toilet handle in my master bedroom broke recently. It's a small part but necessary for flushing if you like dry hands. The big box hardware store solution? A non-OEM company product, with adapter parts to ensure that it works on 90% of toilets. The store saves rack space by selling a single solution. It's about US$19, and I'd end up throwing away the adapters I don't need. The Amazon solution? Several companies had the exact handle I needed from the original manufacturer, with nothing extra. It was about US$12, with free prime shipping (which isn't free but built in, but still less in this case). I LOVE family owned businesses. I think the strategies are much more long term, as parents are likely thinking the kids should inherit a good business. They're usually word-of-mouth driven, and they pay attention to what the consumer is actually looking for, rather than how much profit they can make from each transaction. They live and work in their communities, and fostering an inviting climate comes naturally to them. I think many modern retail practices pretend to take the consumer's side, but in reality the retailers are helping themselves much more. Remember how we used to buy coffee pre-ground in steel cans with a plastic lid on them? Now we pay 3x as much for a paper bag of beans we grind ourselves.

It was working before? You've unplugged it and plugged it back in? Can you switch out the cable? If the two devices disagree about status, one or both of them didn't shake hands properly, most likely.

Retailers often claim Amazon is going to put them out of business. They also said that about Costco and Home Depot, but even those big box retailers complain that Amazon eats too much into their brick and mortar business market. Part of me loves Amazon, since it let's me (seemingly) disconnect from the mainstream consumer train, only buying exactly what I need without having to mess with travel to a bunch of brick stores, being inundated by the general marketing once I'm there, and having to deal with all the people who dislike their jobs because of poor pay (because their employer has to compete with Amazon?). It pleases me to think Amazon knows who has just what I'm looking for, and is happy to introduce us so everyone is happy with their purchases. And part of me hates Amazon. I enjoy talking to people, and want people who work hard to see the benefits. I like supporting local stores, but they have both Amazon and the big box stores to compete with. It seems like the more business my neighbors and I give to Amazon, the less likely it is the businesses around us will survive. The delivery vans also bring more commercial hustle to my quiet residential neighborhood. I'm not a rampant consumer, but I like people, and I miss a lot of human contact by shopping online. It's too easy these days to be reclusive, and I think that attitude set the stage for opioid addiction, increasing suicide rates, and the fear of others many experience these days. As Amazon's competition shrinks and their market share grows, their prices grow as well. They passed the 50M mark on Prime membership recently, and promptly announced a price increase. Will it just get worse as competitors die off? What do you think?

There is a burden of guilt being shifted when one scapegoats, which is similar to a burden of proof. When you blame others for your own deeds, in essence you're claiming you aren't the one who has to prove he's innocent.

I think you're wrong in this. Rarely does wishful thinking produce the kind of blind obstinance and adamant certainty that faith does. Obviously, those who rely on faith for belief are willing to actively twist their viewpoint to support their beliefs and make them work, while wishful thinking rarely causes such a global change in thought. Endercreeper01 exhibits faith in his higher power, not wishful thinking, and certainly not trust. No observable phenomena need his higher power to explain them, yet he is adamant about its existence. If he only hoped or wished for this power to exist, he wouldn't insist on its certainty. Faith is always 100% belief. Trust is NEVER 100%. Wishful thinking is usually less certain than trust, yet persists nonetheless.

! Moderator Note As the OP, this is the definition of the topic everyone should be using to base arguments on. If anyone has a different definition, then use a different word for it, and start a different thread. Any more circular reasoning will be circularly filed.

Ten years ago I saw a system for high-rise buildings that used solar panels and a solar envelope cladding to power the entire common area (atrium lobby, all corridors and bathrooms, exterior wall lighting, and any utility areas). This represented a huge savings in common area charges for companies leasing space or families in condo units. It also means the building isn't so dependent on the grid for power, and systems don't have to be big enough to shoulder the whole load. I noticed this in tandem with LED lighting. When you build something using uber energy-efficient means, you save in many unforeseen ways. We used LED stadium lights for a BMX track a small town north of here built, and the job cost almost $100K less than an incandescent system because the wire gauge is smaller and much cheaper, as are many of the other components. The combination of efficient lighting and solar is fantastic for the consumer.

Private power generation would seem to be a smart use of market forces. After all, business models usually mean lots of growth, and there are plenty of places that need more electricity. However, considering how important electricity is to a modern society, it's smarter to treat it like we do public transportation systems (roads, highways, airports, seaports). Some things are too important to a country to leave them to market pressures and extremist corruption. Also, solar and wind have always been game-changing technologies. They harvest without extraction costs (and the attendant regulations regarding extraction), and aren't controlled completely by private utilities, so the power generated by these sustainable methods needs to have an abnormal markup to generate an exciting profit (which is difficult in a fair market environment with all that nice competition). Perhaps the greatest thing about them is how much easier it will be to keep air and water cleaner as we rely more on them and less on fossil fuels. Smart solutions tend to have smart ripple effects. Ultimately, the tipping point has happened, and any money we keep investing in coal and oil should NOT have public subsidies to unnaturally ensure profit. And if you aren't a proponent of solar and wind energy production, you're a proponent of spending more for your energy to ensure some wealthy folks maintain the highest profit they can.

Solar doesn't have the extraction costs coal and natural gas do. Maintenance of the equipment is less costly as well, due to fewer moving parts. The main problem with solar now is that the electricity that can be generated from mass-produced panels is too cheap to attract private investors who can get much higher returns elsewhere. A supplemental solar grid should be funded publicly by every country on Earth, to make electricity super cheap and avoid burning fossil fuels as much as we can. There are tons of new manufacturing opportunities awaiting cheap electricity. Products that are too expensive to run today could become much more commonplace. If we had inexpensive public solar power, we could transform our highways into powered tracks that don't pollute at all. FYI, privatizing a nation's power grid is probably the STUPIDEST thing ever dreamt up. It ranks right up there with spear-gun tag and whitewater apple-bobbing.

When he openly embraces the leaders of countries our own intelligence communities have identified as hostile, who have very recently been involved in hijacking our electoral process to strike at the heart of our democracy, what else is he but a traitor? All the most outlandish things he's done have made us more vulnerable to sinister influences, and pushed away allies who might be able to help us. He has us defending the wrong borders, and embracing those who value us only for the power they can take from us.

I think something is wrong with your comprehension. You offer personal philosophy as an alternative to scientific rigor, despite having the differences explained, and still offer nothing but wishful thinking. Your approach is uninteresting and subjective, and gives me no reason to suspect there's anything valid about it. Sorry, it seems to make sense only to you, and even you can't give yourself a reasonable explanation.