Phi for All

Evil in our modern life (maybe always) is more of an insidious force; it builds slowly until Good realizes how overbalanced things have become. Whenever Evil strikes in large, broad way, Good rises up immediately (sort of) to defend (WWII is an example). Good isn't very good with the slow stain of creeping Evil we mostly see. Everyday evils are like having to clean off spray paint that taggers have left on your house. They always seem to have more paint than you have time or energy. And when Evil is really evil, it can pretend to be Good, and wreak evil in the name of Good. I think that's the hardest thing for Good to prevail against.

And if I understand it correctly, the release of energy is from the friction of matter from an accretion disk ripping itself apart and bashing into itself as it follows the increasingly limited paths into the event horizon and beyond, correct? So it's not faster than light travel, it's collected matter being forced along a path where gravity is increasing at an unbounded rate, which eventually surpasses the energy light needs to travel out of it. More pop-sci references that make people think of black holes as vacuum cleaners, or creatures searching for mass to gobble up and belch out. The reference probably got a lot of folks to read the article, but can they understand it when there's misunderstanding built in?

I don't see why not. Men created our political system to fit themselves, and it's horribly difficult for women in US politics to work within the "old boys club" atmosphere without bending to its structure. It can tend to create female patriarchs rather than a true matriarchal leader, and I think it would be refreshing to see how a strong woman would restructure our democracy to keep it vibrant and responsive to the will of the People. OTOH, Oprah had a bad experience with an early pregnancy, and never experienced motherhood. I keep picturing our first female POTUS as a fierce mother bear type, nurturing and protective, someone who will prioritize her cubs quite a bit higher than they have been for a long time.

It just seemed terrible that you might be thinking, at 3 years old, that you should have acted differently and change your life. Seems like more victim blaming, but if I'm wrong I'm sorry. And no, I don't think you stopped the conversation. Your post just seemed more like "I regret that this happened" as opposed to "I regret the choice I made". I suppose there are a lot of both in everyone's life.

I have a large family, and my mother used to insist that I shouldn't play favorites when it came to aunt/uncles, cousins, nephews/nieces, and that I should visit and interact equally. Over the years, I think I've pulled away from some family I'd really enjoy spending more time with because I feel an obligation to engage with the rest (I get along with them all, but there are just SO MANY). So I guess I regret not saying, a long time ago, to hell with what the rest think, I'm going to do more things with this nephew, or that cousin, the ones I have a great deal in common with and enjoy the most. My mom had good intentions, but she made me a bit paranoid about the idea of outwardly favoring some over others. The concept of "playing favorites" doesn't work well when you're dealing with a couple hundred relatives. That's horrible, EdEarl, but it falls outside my definition of regret, which usually has an element of remorse for your own past actions. What would you have done differently? #1 may have taken care of #3. And trust me, #4 is usually a 40 year-old regret.

Proof is used in philosophy, and in mathematics, but not in science. It's an important and distinct term for a particular methodology. In science, theory is supported by a preponderance of evidence, which gives us the current best explanation. Nothing is proved, and in this way theories grow stronger. Another important and distinct term, theory doesn't mean "educated guess". Theory is as strong as it gets in science. Also, we rigorously attack ideas here, but not people. This is not a place to get personal. We discuss science, and that means pointing out what doesn't work, and what goes against what we observe in nature.

While being an entertainer (or anything else, really) doesn't mean you can't learn to be a good politician too, it also doesn't mean that your current skill set will make you a better politician. I, for one, think there's too much corruption between business and politics, so putting a former businessperson in a political office is counterintuitive. Winfrey's experience with TV was completely different than Trump's. She ran a daily talk show in front of a studio audience, and learned how to capture interest in many different ways. Trump's "reality" show was heavily scripted and edited, and the skills he learned there haven't translated into a better presence, or made him more skilled at handling the press, or even given him a more sophisticated speaking style, all of which you would expect of entertainment experience. Without an audience motivated by grievance politics (as iNow pointed out), Trump's speaking style leaves most people shaking their heads. When he wings it (as Winfrey had to do daily), he's horribly unclear, repetitive, and misspoken. It seems clear he's appealing to the basest, most primal, torch-and-pitchfork urges among the populace. Remove the emotion from his audience, and they'd be left wondering what this gibbering idiot is on about, and wait, what? He's our leader?! I could see Oprah having a much better relationship with the press. I could see her delivering some fantastically heartfelt speeches. I've always thought a woman president should run on the basis of long-range strategies designed to take us in better/safer/more prosperous directions, show where all the short-term, quick return tactics have led us. Sort of a big-picture, mother hen approach, a true matriarch type. Hillary Clinton always struck me as a woman trying to fit into a job that men usually hold, whereas I can see Oprah Winfrey making it a job a woman should hold. Does that make sense to anyone but me? I still think we need the professional politicians back, but if the public can't get over their starry-eyed idiocy, and it's Winfrey vs Trump in 2020, at this point I'd vote Oprah. I think it would be awesome to have a first woman POTUS be someone who could make people think, "We should have had a woman in there a long time ago. What were we thinking?"

! Moderator Note

It shouldn't be though. Look what the Russians did to the 2016 elections with a few hundred thousand dollars. People in general claim to be immune to advertising ("I'm not fooled, I know they want to sell me something"). They claim they're too smart to fall for con games. They claim they can ignore clickbait on the web. They know what subliminal means in a vague way, but are confident they aren't affected. I think most people still believe they can sift through the "fake news" and somehow "logically" figure out what bits to trust. They believe they can be subjected to the media-hammer on an almost constant basis and not get dented. And when profit is the priority, it's hard to use the media to make folks aware of it. I think we need a TV/web show that resonates with those who want change, and arms them with the information they need in a way mainstream media fails to. Make sure the show is too popular to cancel, and we can use a roll of cash to choke the gold-egg-laying goose.

"Media" means "an intervening substance through which something else is transferred". Since 1996, what's been transferred is 100% entertainment, with no requirements for even a small percentage of what we as Americans really need, which is information. Worse still, far too many people think the "news" has an obligation to inform, when your above example should make it clear that anything that keeps viewers tuned will take precedence over that which informs. It's only coincidence in this post-Telecommunications Act of 1996 environment when entertainment and information intersect.

How much does the average candidate in the UK spend to get elected? Do you have limits on how many ads they can buy, how much others can donate to them? How is lobbying handled in the UK? In the US, some of the largest companies can make more money lobbying politicians for subsidies than they make on some of their product lines. In the highest corporate circles, siphoning off taxpayer funds has become an art form.

A nice sidestep, avoiding the real question the rest of us have been discussing. In case you missed it, everyone agrees that intentionally risky behavior is bad. Now it's up to you to find a different assertion to pose with regard to predatory behavior against someone who wasn't being "risky". Please stop using this one, it fits no longer.

! Moderator Note I moved this to Speculations to give you a chance to explain this to those who won't watch videos. If you want feedback, members must be able to participate without watching videos. Please give a summary in text here. Use evidence to support your idea, and elevate it from guesswork to something we can talk about scientifically. Right now, there's not enough here to keep a Speculations thread going. What else have you got?

Which takes a blind hop over the middle part, where much of the opposing assertions are focused, on the prosecution. The length of the sentences isn't as much the issue, it's the investigation through verdict bit of the process that's unbalanced against the victim (male or female). In this instance, hindsight is hardly handing you a gift if you blame your normal actions on a chance happening of any kind. When does it even remotely make sense to do so? Are you seriously suggesting that, if I blame myself for taking a faster route to work and getting hit by a drunk driver, that it's in any way rational to never take a shortcut again? Isn't that what people are supposed to do with correctly applied hindsight, change bad behavior to increase the probability of a good future? This seems like more of the keep-your-head-down-and-pray argument, and I still don't like it.

Personally, I think the goal should be to reduce/remove the influence of money and fame on our elections, and politics in general, so electing another wealthy celebrity seems like a version of insanity. And I think we've all seen what happens when we assume non-political skills will somehow translate over to better politics. Of course, it may take a billionaire media mogul to point out the disparity in wealth, the untrustworthiness of for-profit news, and the cancerous relationship between lobbyists and representatives of the People. All these things need to change, imo, so I'm a bit leery. Even if she doesn't want to eat us like the current wolf wants, she may still think wolves are entitled to more than what they can catch themselves, and take a bit extra from each of the sheep they're sworn to protect. I'm hoping we need to open a Warren-Harris Ticket thread soon.

! Moderator Note So assertions have no place in arguments if you can't back them up with evidence, yes? Without evidence in support, it's all guesswork and opinion, which isn't science. Thread closed. Don't start another thread on this topic.

I debated adding it because it's hackneyed from overuse, a trite expression that only lends itself because of its popular traditional appeal. So now it's a conservative phrase.

A good project for a bearded Amish carpenter father with some interesting wood scraps is a Chinese checkerboard. I've seen them put together with seven different kinds of wood. I never got around to making one but always wanted to.

And it's one I can understand, one that's consistent with common evangelical teachings, even if I don't agree with them. And if we were trying to repopulate the world after some cataclysm, and needed every single child we could produce, it might even be a conservative one. I think the real problem here is that you're getting pretty sophisticated in your argumentative style, and you want better, not more. You're digging into some meaty issues, and those old binary labels aren't stretching far enough to cover up their own inadequacies anymore. I think you're experiencing growing pains, and it's a good thing. Buy your pants a little longer, and let's all start moving beyond the labels. When we point a finger it means at least three are pointed back at ourselves.

No shame in reduce, reuse, recycle. I look at manufacturer's dumpsters like a salad bar. I can sample small bits without the large investment of a specific meal. It might be harder to do these days, with added security and legal liability concerns.

Abortion stances get labeled a LOT. They're some of the funkiest arguments I've ever heard. I agree with the overall conservative stance that the government should have a very limited control over me and my body. I'll allow that some inoculations, vaccines, and other restrictions based on human habitation density must be part of that limited control. This is what I would term a "small government" stance as well. As long as I'm not hurting any other citizens, I don't want the government in my face. So that's why I feel that the anti-abortion stance is NOT a conservative one. It's a religious one, one that puts the life of the unborn over the life of the citizen, and surrenders control over your body to the government. It's the exact opposite of conservatism. It's the opposite of what the Tea Party and the Libertarians stand for, yet members of both tend towards anti-abortion and anti-drug stances. How is this conservative? How is this small government? Take almost any typical conservative or liberal stance, and you can find tons of stupid examples of their misrepresentation. So the goal of those discussing politics on a science forum is to move beyond the rhetoric, emotion, and finger-pointing, and address the problems rationally. We all need reminders that every stance runs the risk of getting fouled up in the kinds of meaninglessness that hampers our critical thinking.

I'm not buying this at all, not even a little. We all do that, blame ourselves, wish we could take back the last ten seconds, second-guess our judgement with the benefit of hindsight. There will always be something different you could have done, but this argument requires the victim to be essentially prescient. Are you asking women to be mind readers now?

There are a LOT of furniture manufacturers in the south. Have you ever seen if Lifestyle Furnishing in High Point (they're the #3 manufacturer in the US) has a manufacturing plant you could get scraps from? There used to be a place in Denver on our Furniture Row that would pretend you weren't diving in their dumpster.

The reason I ask is because the definitions are so loose that I've heard "conservative" politicians proposing measures that were actually fairly radical but addressed a conservative issue positively, and was therefore considered a conservative measure. The most glaring example I remember off the top of my head was Bush II giving up Medicare's negotiating power with pharma companies for prescription drugs. No politician representing the People would give up such power. No businessperson would give up the power to negotiate based on the size of the business. Yet it was passed by a "conservative" administration, and had the approval of many "conservatives". To me, that's not conservative, not even close. It was corporate subsidies being sold as conservative measures, so we have direct evidence that these labels are being actively used against us. Why use them so much when they lead to finger pointing? Reason and critical thinking outweigh partisanship and tribal mentality. I admit, when I hear someone calling themselves one of these labels, the first thing I think is "You don't know what you're talking about, and are just reacting the way you've been conditioned to be one or the other, this or that, 0% or 100%". And that, too, is conditioning. I think the US in particular needs a refresher course in what a society, what a nation is supposed to be.

Oh, bud, you're just wrong on this one. Trump ran his real estate business into the ground a few times, and it was only his reality TV shows (Entertainment) that kept his brand name in the spotlight. Trying to say Oprah's business credits are massively different from Trump's is a non-starter.