Phi for All

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.

! 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.