Phi for All

No, it's not.

A series (noun) is a set of related things that happen one after another, like TV shows or lectures or sports games. It's pronounced SEER-eez in English. Serious (adjective) is describing something or someone worthy of a lot of thought, energy, and attention. It's pronounced SEER-ee-uss in English.

I always think of the homeopathic doctors in terms of not doing harm simply because they don't do anything. Like the doctors who uses their "cold lasers" on the cyst on your foot, and when it eventually goes away on its own they declare they've healed you. It is different when a doctor advises you against a protocol like vaccination. That's not doing no harm.

FTFY. At one point, I was against carbon dioxide fire extinguishers because I promoted halon gas. Vaccinations are a victim of modern media coverage that insists on making all issues look like two equal groups yelling at each other over a fence. It's the easiest news format to manage, it stimulates our curiosity for sensationalism, which keeps us reading/watching, which gives high ratings, which gives bigger profit for the media company. Fear pushes people to listen to what-if instead of what-is. Knowledge dispels fear. You can learn for yourself, you can learn from your doctor, or you can do both. Or you can be afraid.

I find your honesty about this trick refreshing. That's exactly how the deception works. I think the "proof" you offer isn't convincing enough to fool the reader into accepting it so they can "move on". Messing up on the addition of 156+462+444=906 gives you zero credibility as a numerologist. And the video bit is just greedy, trying to get them to boost your yootoob hits. You need something short and snappy if you're trying to distract the mark into accepting your premise and moving on. Maybe Jesus and God used their full signatures, and with your methodology, we can finally figure out what their middle names are!

I think it's important to realize when being emotional is helpful and when it's not, the same as being rational. When your child's health is in question, and you're consulting a medical professional, your emotions are telling you something must be done. That's when you must let your rational brain take over. If your doctor is telling you to immunize, who would know better? Do you think people on the internet know better than this professional who is actually examining your child? Does your concern over anecdotal fears really override the professional judgement of this doctor you'd probably heed if it were about you, or your wife? Ignorance breeds fear, and knowledge puts it in perspective. When we don't know, we fear everything. When we learn, we figure out what needs to be feared, and how to more appropriately apply our emotions. With our kids, we can't afford to be ignorant. We need to know when to be rational, and when standing over them protectively and growling at anything that comes near is appropriate.

I hate the thought of making voting exclusive, but it would hold a certain extra appeal for some who don't vote now if not just everybody got an automatic vote. If you had to do something to earn the right, like run for office, or serve in the military, or volunteer for a civic program, or graduate from college, or pass some kind of test to show you understand the basic workings of government, perhaps people would treat their vote as the valuable investment it is.

This is the part even admins can't change in IP Board. To make the poll private, I have to delete the old one and create a new one. Isn't there a name for things like this? Where it sounds like a great thing, but in reality not so much? Like using "common sense", when we all know how subjective and uncommon it can be. Or saying something is "logical" when you really mean, "Oh, I understood that!" It's like saying Trump being a businessman would make him a good president. He's admitted that dodging taxes, withholding payments, renegotiating signed contracts in order to get better deals after the work's been done, all these things are "smart business". How does him being a businessman make him a good president? He'll continue to be a businessman afterwards, do you think he's going to suddenly be an advocate of paying his fair share, dealing fairly, and not reducing everything down to profit?

I think you had somebody do your reading for you. That's not even close to what I was saying. Your OP asked if the person who'd had their homework done for them wouldn't understand better, and I was just saying it might work that way the first few times, but eventually the person having their homework done for them (if that part worked out successfully) would put their efforts elsewhere. There would be no reason for them to learn the homework if they didn't need to, and there are plenty of other things to do. And we aren't really talking about understanding here. The person would know the answer, but might not understand how it was derived. Trust me, as you experience more of life, knowing how to learn will show you the difference between being told what's right and knowing how to figure out what's right.

A person might learn a lot the first time someone does their homework for them. The second time, less. Over a fairly short amount of time, we'd learn to take advantage of the savings in resources, and there would be little reason to duplicate the efforts of whoever is doing our homework for us. We can be so smart we do dumb things.

Forgive your anemones, but never forget their names. -- JFK

Where did you read about it? Can you provide a link to what you read?

What do you mean when you say it's "undisplayed"? What happens when you type/paste www.scienceforums.net into your browser? www.scienceforums.net What happens when you click the link above?

This Snopes article makes it sound like it was a bit of media scare tactics to make the diacetyl - popcorn lung connection.

Over 9000 has been suspended for 3 days for abusive behavior and thread hijacking, and for refusing requests for clarity. New member hopefully, shaky start, nothing that can't be fixed with a bit more civility and patience.

Other discussions on the topic: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72167-which-microscope-is-better-omax-or-amscope/?hl=microscope http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/45661-would-a-35-year-old-olympus-microscope-be-better-then-a-new-amscope/?hl=microscope http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82120-foldscope-the-paper-microscope/?hl=microscope http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75182-olympus-hsc-microscope/?hl=microscope http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/70966-mid-range-microscope-choice/?hl=microscope I hope we can help.

Jest a strained filter from too many pithy OPs.

[/mic holding] Slow. Clap. Clap.

Plus it's just going to be a magnet for instances of Skitt's Law, where you inevitably make a speling or, punctuation error when criticizing others for doing the same.

I think the concept of soulmates is bunk. Compatibility doesn't guarantee you can spend the rest of your life with someone. And the idea that all the successful marriages did so against the astronomical odds involved in meeting their one "soulmate" is ridiculous. Nobody is going to "come along". I think you actively have to look for the people you'd consider as mates, if you want somebody to live with rather than just procreate with. I think that's a good thing, it gives you freedom and choice. There's nothing really belief-based in finding the right person, imo. You could look at it very objectively and scientifically by setting out exactly what you're looking for. Do you want someone you can build a life with, work together with towards common goals? Then you need to decide what goals you'd like, and find a guy who wants that too. There isn't just one of them, there are a TON to choose from, and out of that ton there will be a LOT that you could see growing old with, and out of that lot you just need to decide what else you want from the relationship so you can refine your choices. People say you shouldn't talk about commitment early in a relationship, but I think the only ones you'd really scare off are the ones who wouldn't commit in the first place. I think the only way to find the right person is to talk about stuff like this, so you can see if your goals align (if that's important).

Plus, you get pee all over you....

! Moderator Note Let's remember that these specific procedures are valid for discussion, but medical diagnosis is not. Please refrain from giving medical advice.

...and for that you need a math whiz, obviously. Please describe the effects of hurling a peecicle at the Earth from a plane at a fraction of c, say one quarter.

I fully understand your concerns, and there has been a lot of "trumped up garbage" presented in the OP. But so far, I don't see anyone "dismissing legitimate concerns". This objection isn't happening here, not the way you're describing. Concerns based on assumptions and misinformation are being corrected, and so far nobody is saying it's all "normal".

Tres bien!