Phi for All

! Moderator Note I know who gave the points, so it's not subjective. Nor is it mere opinion, since many have agreed that the negative points were unjustified. This isn't the only thread affected. I mentioned it because it's part of my position to help discussions progress. I saw that the negative rep might lead to unreasonable responses, so I wanted to let folks know it was a drive-by, and not from someone involved. Thank you for stopping by Politics, your lordship, and giving your criticism of something in which you don't normally participate.

Great article from Business Insider. It's a healthy, well-rounded economy where all participate that creates jobs, NOT wealthy people as they like to tell us. Income gains need to benefit all, not just the richest.

! Moderator Note Disgruntled non-participant, seemingly on a drive-by for all un-American attitudes. It looks like the membership is doing the right thing and correcting this specific use of the system.

I think the managers of my study are looking for something like this. Since I mentioned it the first time, they always ask me if I still think I'm on the placebo. I've taken meds in the past that did wonders for the aches and twinges that happen as we age. This pill I take for the study should do the same but doesn't, ergo placebo.

That's a search parameter, not a link. Link to a specific article that supports what you say so we can take a look at it. That tool is on the editing bar. I do know a bit about placeboes. I'm currently part of a 3 year double-blind study for a drug used in certain protocols, and I'm 99% sure I'm on the placebo, mostly because I DON'T feel the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory effect I'm supposed to. I can't link you to this ongoing study, but I can tell you that the sugar pills aren't the part that's changed. Placebo effect is what is evolving.

What about the lube gun specialist at Grease Monkey who only works on the pre-80s cars? Science tour guide at the Creationist Museum? Bowling ball repairperson?

Sorry, I should have just used that term instead of explaining it in the OP as a top rate on extreme earnings. ... but first I'd like to talk about using a tax on extreme wealth to fight extreme poverty. I'm actually very surprised at the pushback from you, Sensei. This is how we would pay for things like universal healthcare and education for all. You seem unfocused or unclear on this issue, or else I've completely misjudged your worldview. I'll add to what others have said. This isn't a tax on all earnings, it just covers earnings over a certain amount, which don't typically get infused back into the economy (one can only spend so much money). There will still be fabulously wealthy people, but there will also be people with more advantage than poverty. This solution has been applied before, and many people point to that era (1950s US) as a golden one. I think the advantage of wealth should be offset by advantages of universal healthcare and education. I think this type of tax is one way to achieve that.

I can't find where that happened to any great extent during the Eisenhower years, which leads me to believe it would be insignificant with regards to the tax. They actually might have been encouraged to begin earlier. Eisenhower authorised the establishment of NASA, after all. Please remember that there were still wealthy people under this type of structure. Plenty of major businesses started during the Eisenhower years that are still around. There may not have been as many shadow yachts, but there weren't as many starving Americans, and business still went on and more people prospered than ever before. It could be argued that more overall prosperity would be a huge boost for businesses everywhere. But for a while, things are better. It's taken the wealthy more than 50 years to warp our society back to where they get not only the advantage of wealth but also of denying advantage to the poor. It took the avaricious that long to mess it up again, but in the mean time we had the GI Bill that sent so many fantastic military folks to college, and we got the interstate highway system. So at least for a while, before the greed sets back in, we have something closer to a society that actually cares about its citizens.

I too find little overlap between political persuasion and skin color.

President Eisenhower had a 91% top tax rate on extreme earnings, which basically took care of two big problems: the worst of the poverty related to circumstances of birth, and the fact that the crazy extreme wealth tends not to circulate through the economy). Do you think we should work towards reinstating such a tax in the US?

I would start by laying out your platform, then compare it to existing parties. There are a lot of them, and I would imagine there are some good ones that are waiting for recognition and leadership.

Dave, you need to know that you painted a target on your own back posting assertions with no citation on a science discussion forum. You took science in school, right? Remember how the preponderance of evidence thing works? We're guilty of assuming you knew how the critical process worked. Perhaps you should ask questions if you aren't sure. And if you are sure about something that's not mainstream science, some evidence to support your position is pretty reasonable, don't you think?

No responses were deleted. What are you on about? And no, you don't get to claim this is a fact after you've been asked for citations to back yourself up. Still haven't seen any evidence, and I agree with Velocity Boy that if anything, it's the placebo effect that has changed. The placebos themselves have not changed.

Perhaps the bottom of the ocean is littered with the corpses of time travellers.... You can go anywhen you please if you can handle the pressure.

Not for the two I was thinking of. Reading to the elderly/incapacitated/children, and recording audiobooks. You want a job where the work is light enough to let you read when you want and work as little as possible? Good luck, you can't work for me.

! Moderator Note OK, since you're posting a pet idea now instead of asking a question about the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, the rules say this needs to be moved to Speculations. But without a way to test this idea ("belief manifests reality"?!), there's no science to be done. It's all just wishful thinking and wild-ass guesswork, and there are other sites for that. I need a direction for this thread pretty quick. Do you want to defend this idea with evidence in Speculations? It can't stay in Quantum Theory without some science.

This mechanism worked well when we knew little of medicine. Inflammation led to swelling and secretions that cleaned the often dirty wounds out. Now that we know more about wound management, that phase is a bit of a problem, and drugs help us circumvent a natural and normal but cumbersome and sometimes detrimental bodily process.

! Moderator Note Sorry, but this discussion is based on misapplying a well-known definition for "dimension". There's nothing to speculate on, and even the philosophical angle shouldn't be based on a misunderstanding. ALO, I'm going to toss this thread, but if you can pick a different word for your concept you can open another thread about it, maybe in Philosophy. You can't use dimensions, it's been taken by physics.

! Moderator Note In this thread?! I can't find it.

! Moderator Note Since this is no longer a simple classical physics algebra question thread, and is now actively arguing against the mainstream, it's time for all students to stop taking notes. We're moving to Speculations, where the ice is thin and your professor is NOT going to accept any of the answers. Please take the time to read the special rules, Mandlbaur, and please support your idea with evidence. People are going to be asking for it.

! Moderator Note Let's cut back on the conjecture. We'll write the movie scripts after it happens. Stick to the topic, please.

I pointed out that they resisted their own Hitler and went on to form a better society, as a way to support my argument that we don't have to allow ourselves to be destroyed by the "virus" in the OP. Sorry I wasn't clearer.

Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian fascist like the man in the American White House, and for sucking up to Putin Hitler and helping him dominate the Norwegians, they removed Quisling from office after the war was over and hung him. We don't have to help the virus spread.

The Norwegians resisted their own Hitler after WWII, and now have one of the most sophisticated and enlightened societies on Earth. Negative examples can have a profound impact. Surviving the discovery of fission weapons can be seen as a test of the very things that make us human: high intelligence, cooperation, and communication. We're in an age where, for the first time, we can think about leaving the planet. Sooner or later it will occur to the general populace that we can't be a divided species when we start to colonize offworld. Human hostility + a system's worth of resources isn't a good equation for Earth. Education would seem to be the key.

! Moderator Note #1 rule here folks, Be Civil. No more name calling, no more insults, please. Sensitive topics deserve some extra thought from everyone.