Phi for All

We need to make sure investments like this are used with the same wisdom that makes them possible. Bravo NY!

jack shit ˌjak ˈSHit noun noun jackshit noun jack shit plural noun jack shits plural noun jackshits anything at all. Web definitions Nothing is a pronoun denoting the absence of anything. Nothing is a pronoun associated with nothingness. In nontechnical uses, nothing denotes things lacking importance, interest, value, relevance, or significance. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Shit

! Moderator Note New thread on the same topic merged with old thread. And a reminder that you need to show evidence to support your assertions, and address questions posed to you by the membership. You know, discussion?

So you want to keep the state level system that ensures we can't have a single, nationally funded basic education? I suggest it wouldn't fly because you're keeping it's wings clipped. And I think the only way to make it fly is if it has a national support, and one of the best ways to get that is to make it an American thing to do. Competition is a huge motivator for many, and while the program can easily be tailored for custom solutions to rural and urban, wealthy and poor problems, I think the concept of our schools supporting the best students is something we could be extremely proud of as a nation.

I don't think the "bootstrap pull-up" is a sound argument until you do as much as you can to remove circumstance of birth from the equation. A publicly funded core curriculum supported by all goes a long way to leveling the playing field. And I never said people couldn't use their wealth to give their children more education. I'm mainly interested in a common starting place for all with regard to preparing their own potential. Another good reason for a national core. The efficiency of administering such a system would free up funds needed elsewhere in the system. What they're effectively doing is diluting the system. Their resources go towards the private schools, which have to show a profit (indeed, whose primary aim is to show a profit). They now want vouchers to remove yet more funding from the public system. They're missing the whole point of education in their efforts to make money. This should be about educating our children, nothing more, and for that you need a solution that isn't profit based. And I've just suggested how to fix it. Put all our resources into a single education system designed to produce the world's greatest students. Kennedy encouraged us to go to the moon, this new education system could encourage us to... be very smart?

I like the concept of a well-developed national core curriculum that everyone (administrators, legislators, parents, teachers, students) is responsible for making successful, and is paid for by public support alone. I like what France does as well, making it illegal to charge for teaching this core to remove support for private schooling, so the wealthy are forced to support the schools everyone attends. Sometimes choice is not the point, and never has been.

So we can know which kind of help to offer, do you think this is a real world, or is it a story you're writing?

! Moderator Note Some off-topic trolling and responses to it have been split to the Trash. If you can't be civil, you can't be here.

Is that why so many places like McD's and BK switched to milkshake-adjacent solutions, because more folks are becoming intolerant?

I completely agree, and I was just thinking about this the other day. Jordanian and Lebanese immigrants to Mexico blended shawarma style techniques with local ingredients and spices to form a trombo (pork roast and bacon blended and triple chili-spiced, topped with a mound of pineapple rings) and cooked in an upright broiler. Slice off some of the meat and pineapple into a small tortilla, add some finely chopped cilantro, salsa, and raw onion and you have Tacos al Pastor. I would tear down a wall to get these done right by Mexicans from the Middle East.

The butchers have had their fingers on the scale since Nixon.

I understand, and I wonder also if that too-high percentage might be used on earnings that also might be considered too high? Perhaps only earnings above $50M are taxed at 90%, with multiple lesser rates to encourage investment. That's probably less than 200 people, but might be worth a few hundred $M. Median wages for the 99% haven't yet made it into the 21st century, I heard on the radio the other day. Still stuck at 1999, while the number of gazillionaires has steadily been rising since that time. If the middle and lower class earn less so tax revenue declines, the money to keep things running HAS to come from the 1%, and not in the form of a loan or a handout.

I think a god(s) would view extremism poorly. I think a believer in Jesus should be more tolerant. I don't think people who profess to be Christians should be threatening violence. It's extremely intolerant, extremely irrational, and extremely hypocritical.

Twisting fibers together to form threads not only makes the thread stronger in thickness, it transfers stress more efficiently since the sides of the thread compresses when the ends are pulled. The average bed sheet has about a million twists of fiber. Source: Why the Wheel is Round by Steven Vogel

No, that's misusing the definition of regeneration. Deciduous teeth are temporary, and smaller than adult human teeth. The transition between the two doesn't happen using a regenerative mechanism, but rather one more resembling exfoliation.

This part sounds like "You have to unequivocally accept that an all-powerful God created everything or else He can't exist!" Is this correct?

! Moderator Note Moved from Organic Chemistry, looking for more perspectives on the same questions.

! Moderator Note No. Every careful explanation provided to you has been effectively ignored. It's clear you have a mental logjam about this, and can't see your way out of it. The "logic" in your OP you keep referring to seems to be keeping your head below water. I suggest you re-examine. This thread can't continue in Speculations unless you can support the explanation with something more than waving hands. Last chance. Start listening, or start providing supportive evidence for your stance.

Personally, I think this is probably the most effective way to present the concept. It's one of the few that doesn't immediately cause the "class warfare" defenses to be thrown up. "You'll be richer if more people can afford to buy your goods" seems pretty ironclad.

Do you think this emotional perspective on an issue that requires rational support is a Republican/conservative stance, or is it part of the wealthy fortress mentality we're seeing, where defending their assets is far more important than any People, or is it something else?

I think you're wrong about that, and that's why you're not a researcher. It requires a rational viewpoint. This sounds suspiciously like, "If you're going to question me and not just accept my suspicions as fact, I won't bother".

In terms of partnering with the government on issues like healthcare and education, and using that smart and healthy investment to further the goals of the economy in general, I see no harm in viewing the government as a partner. I object to the current popular wealthy viewpoint that the government isn't holding up its end of the partnership, and must be removed (difficult to trust their judgement when it comes to regulatory constraints). I would like to challenge the perception that social programs are some kind of charitable handout. If we viewed them more as our basic investment in our citizenry, maybe we could have some stability, some overall prosperity to change perspectives all the way round.

I don't think tying the tax to how much of a "partner" the government has been to you is a sound approach. In fact, it's exactly how the wealthy have managed to convince us to lower such taxes, because they don't feel any obligations to the government, and actively call for its reduction. This is more of a societal obligation, or should be. I say let the wealthy object to helping their own society, rather than hiding behind an objection to the government. Is allowing extreme wealth only after extreme poverty has been eliminated such an abhorrent concept?

The diodes are all capable of dimming (yay, solid state!). With LEDs it depends on the driver used. If the driver (which replaces the ballast fluorescents use) is dimmable, the luminaire is dimmable. Daylight harvesting is mostly effective for the lights that are closest to windows. Further into the building, the need for light is pretty constant, so dimming isn't necessary.

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but aren't we talking about daylight harvesting? The controls for that are available now, and they're awesome. Lutron makes some commercial models that will dim on bright days and boost the light on cloudy days.