Phi for All

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).

! Moderator Note This has to be our official stance as well. We care about our members and feel it does more harm than good to offer advice that might take the place of a professional, personal diagnosis. Please see a qualified medical professional about your depression. I can leave the thread open to discuss the disorder in general, but any further posts offering medical advice will be hidden.

I said they look alike on many stances. Shelley Moore Capito has actually voted for some Obamacare expansions that would make it harder to overturn it. Mark Kirk has a pretty liberal voting record on social issues and the environment, that offsets his more conservative stances on foreign policy. I think John McCain would have made a decent POTUS. He was against the debt-ceiling and government shutdown strategies to block the ACA, which I always applauded him for. Earlier this year, Carlos Curbelo worked to create a bipartisan caucus on climate solutions, trying to acknowledge the very real issues facing us and our lack of viable policy options. Jeff Denham from CA co-sponsored an immigration reform bill created by the Dems. He's also broken with Republican ranks to defend some of Obama's immigration policies. And I don't think Clinton and Obama are that far off the moderate Republicans when it comes to favorable dealings for Big Business. Corporate taxes are consistently low imo, and the regulations that govern them continue to be relaxed in too many key areas.

It could just be as simple as demanding professionalism. Being a gangland boss is like being a Marine drill sergeant. Being sensitive and emotional is detrimental to the skill set, and is often seen as inimical to ruthless decision-making.

Neither major party represents me very well, but because the overall social perspective of the Democrats is much more reasonably and realistically aligned with mine, I tend to give them my vote. Personally, I think if Obama had been white, he might have been given the respect his behavior should have earned him (in many stances, he and Hillary look just like moderate Republicans). Throughout his terms, President Obama and his family have embodied the very best of what it means to serve the US as its highest elected official. Whether or not you agree with his policies, I think an honest person has to admit the deck was stacked against him in terms of situation and support. He inherited a country in wreckage, and did the best he could with little help from the other branches supposedly dedicated to our prosperity. He was absolutely one of the best. The Republicans feared this nightmare of blacks and women running for POTUS would unfold eventually, and their intractable, juvenile, fingers-in-the-ears-blockade of anything good that might come of it has tarnished their reputation worldwide, something they seem oblivious to (or just don't give a rat's ass about, because hey, foreigners). They've done things other administrations would have considered unimaginable (like denying a POTUS hearings on SCOTUS candidates - last time that was done was 1875). And now it looks like they're going to urinate similarly all over the first woman POTUS' administration. Trump is their candidate, and he's the perfect embodiment of what the party has become, as evident by all the support he's still getting from the party and its members. At this point, I'm so tired of the gridlock that I might even welcome a Democrat-controlled Congress. But I'd rather the Republicans would decide to just get their shit together and stop blocking non-white, non-male presidents just because of who they are.

This sounds like the empty rhetoric Republicans have been slinging around whenever Obama has been able to figure out a legal workaround that thwarts this Congress' attempts to block everything positive our first black president wants to do.

Can you give us a real life example? If I understand, it would be like Jack's mother objecting to the handful of magic beans he sold the cow for, but she wants to keep them as a reminder of what an idiot Jack can be. Is that an example of what you mean?

So now I know what you got. And when you start holdin' hands with some dame, we know who to put the bag on. I think the mafia voice in my head is from Chicago circa 1930.