Phi for All

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!

I don't think anyone has mentioned the fact that this is waaaay beyond consensus of climatologists at this point. A consilience is when there is consensus between multiple disciplines, all arriving at the same conclusions. On climate change, we have a consilience in the conclusions of fields ranging from geology to paleoclimatology to meteorology to biochemistry to geophysics (and lots more), and they've all followed separate lines of evidence all leading to the same conclusions: humans need to cut back on carbon emissions or we'll seriously harm our present environment, and thus our ability to survive in it. The evidence also shows us that taking steps to prevent this can delay degradation and even reverse it, so it's possible to fix this if we make the necessary recommended changes.

What's the difference between an elephant and a grape? Grapes are purple. What did Jane say when she saw the elephants coming? "Here come the grapes!" (she was colorblind)

Seems par for the course lately, Republicans sludging up the works and then pointing at the POTUS for not getting things done (I've watched them do this ever since Reagan - mess up the system, then claim the system is messed up). I don't think much of your evidence for "circumvent[ing] our laws". It seems as though procedure has been followed, if respect on both sides is lacking.

I haven't read through all the links, but how many are going to be like this one, an attempt to circumvent the blockades on judicial appointments the Republicans have only erected against this one president? How many of these accusations are going to be simply your right-skewed perspective on how Obama had to fight upstream through two terms to get the respect every other POTUS has been given as part of the job?

I think the only thing they all have in common is that none of them have any evidence to support them. And some seem unfalsifiable, which makes them unscientific. Dimensions, as used in string theory, aren't planes of existence. They're coordinates in a system for determining position in spacetime. I could give you x, y, z, and t so you could figure out where and when to meet for lunch, for instance.

! Moderator Note qasimchef, if you'd like to support your assertions with evidence, I can move this to Speculations. If you are still just asking questions, and looking for helpful replies, we can continue here with corrections to some of the assumptions you've made. We await your reply.

Perhaps the Ig Nobel Prize. Dunning-Kruger category. and good catch on the Bingo!

I don't understand the connection between a Venus tattoo and killing one's mother. If you revere Venus, you'd never kill your mother? Is that it? I don't understand why it would be fallacious to object to both the tattoo and killing one's mother (while having the tattoo).