Phi for All

To answer the title question, it's possible of course, but no, not the way simulated universes are usually presented. You've set the scenario up so there's no way to tell the difference between real and simulated. That's no different than proposing there's a god(s), but you can't observe them because they're all powerful. There's no meaning to arguments like these because you've rigged it from the start.

Otoconia breaking off could be responsible, and would account for extreme vertigo.

! Moderator Note We invite you to open your own thread about atheism, rather than take this one off-topic with that tangent. The subject here is a particular study that was done on religious fundamentalism, if you didn't read the whole thread.

It's been well established that you have no idea how science really works. Your basic mistake is you don't understand the basics of evidence. Climate science isn't about opinion.

Why do you think her popularity was the problem when she won the popular vote? Do you really think anyone supporting the Pussygrabber would have voted for Hillary if she would have smiled more seriously? The election wasn't close at all, it was a technical decision by the electoral college. This stooge embodies all the WORST TRAITS we've had in presidents. He's the biggest liar, lecher, thief, and bully, and he's the most ignorant about the job. He has none of the good qualities we've had in presidents, none whatsoever. Clinton just rubbed you the wrong way, and you really need to learn why this wasn't her fault, but rather yours.

What if the people behind the rip-off also control your ability to hear about a better representative? Is it still your fault? There may be better choices the magic bean men are hiding from you. I don't think it's your fault entirely. But the ones who could effect change aren't being allowed. Isn't this a lot like the "Get a job if you're poor" argument?

Let me start by saying that, if you know little science, honest feedback and studies may not mean much to you. You won't know the difference unless you've studied extensively. One thing a non-expert should know is what consensus really means in science. When you have consensus among experts in a particular branch of science (such as climate science), it means the vast majority have allowed a thorough review of the evidence to lead them to the same conclusions. That happened quite some time ago. What we have now is different. On the subject of anthropogenic climate change, there is a consilience. That's when other branches of science (meteorology, geology, biology, etc) independently converge on the same conclusions. There is no doubt among those with the essential knowledge. I understand where this sentiment comes from, but you're applying it badly. A scientist who is paid to come up with an opposing view is different from someone like Nye or Tyson, who express scientific consensus and are supported by sponsors or donations. If I write a position paper on climate science that meets with peer approval, there are people who will support my efforts to present this paper at conferences and paid engagements. Just because I'm paid for my arguments doesn't mean they're wrong or fallacious. Making sure the public is well-informed should be a priority. Experts get paid for their expertise, right? Why are science experts any different, right?

I think a big part of that is how strictly they held to the first few books. I'm usually a "book was better" guy, and HBO finally did the right thing. I can't choose between the series and the books. It's hard to blame the screenplay writers for deviations after book four, since GRRM hadn't finished the books before the series began. But after book four, you're so hooked that plot changes make you grumble instead of scream.

So are you saying this is something bad that's been going on far too long and should be stopped, or are you saying it's all part of the normal market/public/military/industrial dynamic and will never change so why worry? Or did you have a different argument behind "This isn't new"? Don't you agree that it's partly ripoff deals between public monies and private contractors that lead to people who dislike paying taxes? We have whittled things down to those who agree that taxes are necessary, I think. Do you think this old behavior helps people support paying their fair share of taxes?

I remember the story during the Iraq war. KBR, Halliburton's division for military services, was charging the US $75 for each disposable plastic tray used by the troops. Because of desert conditions, they were encouraged to use two trays, one as a cover to protect from sand. In 2005, Halliburton was found to have ripped off the US military for incredible sums. In 2007, they were given another $150B no-bid contract. Public money, spent on public defense, enriching the private sector.

I have a hat with the crest of House Lannister. That's what it does; it covers my head and it knows things.

Other than NPR, we have no news sources that aren't based on profit. We have no laws guaranteeing that our free press has to actually inform us. We lack accurate information, and so we're easily misled by emotional political pleas. In a situation like we have here, many choose not to rock the boat for fear it's going to tip worse. We really should be demanding to know why it takes so much more of our tax revenue to get things done here compared to everywhere else.

This is why taxation and public funding is a good idea. Perpetuating its current applications will continue to keep it only good, better than nothing certainly, but never great. If we want our taxes spent wisely, which in turn should make them more popular, then we need to have a different attitude about how We the People, as preferred customers, should be treated by these companies. We pay too much to contractors, we're regularly ripped off, and this is a big reason why People hate paying taxes.

Exactly my point regarding mixing capitalism with socialism in what should be strictly a socially funded strategy. If you want to grow the prison system, use a business model. If you want to address crime effectively, use models that try to reduce it. The same is true with roads. Do we want good roads, or do we want to help a private company make as much profit from our publicly funded road system as possible?

! Moderator Note Due to the "let's be scientific/here's what I think/I'm right about this" nature of the OP, I'm moving this to Speculations. Let's be scientific indeed. More evidence for assertions needed.

When taxes are used for programs funded strictly publicly, I think taxpayers get a better price and more focus on the specific aims of the program. Infrastructure programs almost always involve private companies and cost us more than anywhere else in the world because of it. Education is still mostly publicly funded, but we see how they've privatized school lunch programs so profit is maximized rather than nutrition guidelines. As for security, we've all heard the stories of privatization in the military, where contractors are paid ludicrous sums so soldiers don't have to peel potatoes or work in the motor pool, the $75 disposable meal trays, and other examples where our publicly funded "security" is making money for private companies whose priority is making money. Armies run on a business model have no choice but to grow, and justify their need to ALWAYS get bigger.

I don't understand why you admit this is just a wild guess, the only thing that occurred to you, and yet you claim people who know more science than you do are "ridiculing" your ideas. Isn't it more likely that they're showing where you're wrong, where your science ignorance lies? Isn't that why people discuss science on science discussion forums, to reduce their ignorance in very specific areas? So if this is all true, why do you have this attitude that your idea is being mishandled by wannabes? It's pretty clear that you've got more need for clarification than collaboration.

Personally, I use a not-for-profit credit union instead of a bank. They're still federally insured, but I get better interest rates and cheaper services because their boards are voluntary and profit is adjusted back to the members (not customers, members). I consider this a great use of socialism with regard to effective ownership. We should do this with utilities and education. I would LOVE to see how anyone could come up with numbers that make privatisation more compelling than public funding for anyone but the private contractor. Businesses are going to want profit first and foremost, so how can they use our taxes more wisely? Privatisation has to cost at least 15-30% more just for the profit that makes it worthwhile for investors. We should be setting up our taxes so the programs they pay for are the priority. Germany tells private road contractors what criteria they have to meet, and how much will be paid if they're met. It's then up to the road companies to figure out how to do it. In Germany's case, they don't let people drive on asphalt for 90 days. No potholes for 10 years. They have gorgeous roads at a fraction of the cost we pay. That's how you spend taxes wisely, not by constantly calling for tax reductions.

! Moderator Note One account only, please! Use the bird11dog account, this one is banned.

I think most of the problems with taxation stem from mixing private and public structures of ownership. If something is privately owned, it should live and die by market standards, with subsidization by public funds only in the case of emerging technologies. If something is publicly owned, the public should own it and all the parts of it. Remember when the Bell System owned all the phones? When you leased into the system and paid your monthly fees and long-distance charges, they issued you a phone that was practically indestructible, because Bell owned it and had to fix it if you couldn't make a call on it. As soon as they changed their business model after divestiture, they started selling the phones as well, only they were no longer the indestructible marvels they were when we were leasing them. They broke and you had to buy a new one. Right now we have an infrastructure problem that needs tax monies to fix, but we've mixed private businesses into our public works programs, and now we pay more for roads and bridges and buildings than any other country in the world. We waste public funds on asphalt roads laid down by private companies who donate to both political parties, and they've slowly changed the way public roads are built. Now they have conned us into believing that driving on asphalt the day it's put down is a good idea, raising the cost of maintenance and preventing expansion of the system. Roads in the US are the most expensive they've ever been, and they have more potholes and lousy patches than ever before. Public roads are being built with profit as the priority, and high-quality, durable, smooth roads aren't the point anymore. So it isn't the taxes that are a problem. The problem has always been the way they're spent, and I think it's mainly because our capitalism is allowed to choke our socialism. If we can't trust the private sector to fulfill public contracts, maybe we need to bring back public workers whose aim is to build great things instead of help drive profit.

! Moderator Note Interesting science discussion is always the goal. The format of providing an abstract with a followup link to a study is a great way to focus the conversation. We don't require it for all threads because it isn't always necessary. Mods have NOTHING to do with starting threads. A moderator who starts a thread isn't allowed to moderate it. Also note, Astronomy & Cosmology is a mainstream section. You wouldn't expect to find speculation here anyway. If you ever do, please use the Report Post function.

You must have me on Ignore.

Let me get this straight, so to speak. Are you saying JamieD is here to teach us something about ourselves, as sort of a negative role model? Like an Archie Bunker type who shows us the absurdity of hateful attitudes and behaviors in modern human society, in the hope that we'll effect change because of his ludicrous stances? Is that what you're saying? Because that works, actually.

I agree. I'm actually losing weight right now on a version of Atkins. My metabolic panels are right on the money, but I haven't had a lipid test done recently. I'm curious to see what my cholesterol ratio is (if they still give ratios of HDL to total cholesterol). Optimally, it should be no more than 3.5 to 1. I think a person who prefers savory to sweet will do well on a low carb diet. Sure, there's a lot of salad, but you also get to saute your broccoli instead of just steaming it. And bacon drippings mixed with butter is awesome for a saute.

So from now on, nothing but links to scientific studies, got it. Can you clarify something first? Are you talking about homosexuality in nature, like Simpson17866 mentioned, or are you talking about human homosexuality, as Manticore was linking to? Also, do you think humans are part of nature? Or do you consider them unnatural?