Phi for All

Wow, you aren't invited. It's not about abandonment at all. It's about curiosity and exploration, something that happens with smarter humans. Nothing says we can't improve at home and abroad.

It's interesting that the Donald seems to have given you permission to get nasty and personal. I don't know how it helps. I stopped working sales for other companies because of men like Trump. They've turned the profession into pure aggressive greed by rewarding the kind of juvenile, pushy, bullying behavior we're talking about here. The only women they reward are the ones who can be just as aggressive and ruthless as the guys, and also don't mind having their asses grabbed by the boss. Do you think it's necessary for me to hate myself before I can notice injustice and cruelty?

It's a huge advantage if we get smart enough to figure out how to leave the planet and spread some biodiversity around. Harsh environments provide lots of evolutionary pressures and challenges. Challenges make intelligent creatures even more intelligent.

Don't you call it bullying too? I do. It's like that shitty move some guys try to pull by turning your hand sideways when you shake hands, putting their hand on top of yours. It's like they're exposing the veins in your wrist. Juvenile, macho, aggressive. All things that are often lauded in men. It also distracts you long enough that you don't notice your wallet missing until you leave the building. Trump class all the way.

Oh, that kind of garbage happens to women all the time. Men can be aggressive, women are just bitchy. Most of the terminology about male aggressiveness is positively slanted (you have to reach a criminal level before the terms start reflecting reality). Men get called something like hardasses, which is actually kind of a compliment. You can grudgingly respect a hardass. There is no equivalent term for an aggressive woman. All the words are derogatory, all are meant to deride with zero respect. Try to find a word that describes a man who is aggressive about liking sex that isn't half complimentary. Now try to find a word that describes a woman who is aggressive about liking sex that doesn't degrade her in some way for the same behavior. "Cougar" was the closest I found, but that's more derogatory about age. And Trump is a good example of how that's applied socially. If a man goes after the Donald aggressively, he'll attack back against that man's heritage, his work ethic, his business acumen, his intelligence, and other arguable points. What happened when Meagan Kelly got aggressive? "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." Meagan wasn't being a hardass journalist; she was an hysterical woman who's questions were irrelevant.

The problem is, with words you often get to a point where your explanation only makes sense to you, and that's when you should be able to show math to explain it more plainly to anyone who still doesn't understand. Your mistake is assuming the words should be more important. They aren't. They fail. They can be misinterpreted. They're imprecise. They're often subjective. The math involved in electromagnetic theory works and works very well. It provides the most precise language to explain the phenomena. It's no wonder you think something is missing from current theory to give it explanatory power. Your mistake is in assuming it's not the math like everyone's telling you. It's the math. The math is what you're missing that would let everything drop into place for you. You said it yourself, you're having trouble explaining what you mean, and there should be a better way to do that. It's the math. You're reminding me of a very old joke - Man 1: "Excuse me, you look familiar. What's your name?" Man 2: "Henry." Man 1: "No, that's not it."

You probably missed the part where I claimed she was fully qualified to be president. She's got more time in foreign policy and politics in general than the last three presidents had. She's not just better than Trump, she could do the job and not destroy our relationships with the non-white world.

For the Republicans I know personally and see here on the forums, this amendment is more accurate. That tweet was true. More and more it's looking like a choice between a white supremacist who wants to hold office for the first time as POTUS, and a qualified woman who rubs you the wrong way.

Why do you think this would be more interesting than the possibility that, if you learned the math, you might understand and accept that our current mainstream theory is the best explanation?

It's sort of like saying, "Which of these two looks more like a time machine?" Are you looking for a design that gives more visual cues that the ship is contracting space in front of it, and expanding space behind?

Has anyone had any experience with fully electric motorcycles? I know one of the justifications for loud pipes is so everyone on the highway knows there's a motorcycle pretty close, and I'd like to know if that's a myth or not, that it makes driving safer. I would imagine an electric motorcycle is like a ghost, not seen or heard. More dangerous? Less obnoxious? Wicked cool?

One can easily believe the new rumors that this whole campaign is now aimed at launching Trump TV with Bannon and Ailes. And using GOP funds to do it. Making more money by losing the race is the missing part that makes the Trump equation complete. Now his actions make sense. It's not about the power of the presidency, it's the power of outraged people to spend their money on a new, more acceptable white supremacy brand.

Are you calling me dishonest? Please answer "yes" or "no".

It's OK to mention a quote from Stephen Hawking. It's NOT OK to link to a reply you made in another thread that mentions the quote. That's promoting/advertising, and while it's not commercial, it's also unnecessary and unappreciated. It's better to just copy/paste and give credit for the quote from Hawking in the current thread. People don't want to click your link. Because that's the longer way. It's not useful.

This whole email huzzah seems like so much grasping at straws. All the investigative terminology makes any action seem suspicious. Are we really thinking someone who has endured the kind of scrutiny Hillary Clinton has is masterminding Nixon-esque misdeeds on traceable electronic media? Am I wrong to be incredulous? The GOP is afraid of this woman for her brains, but then assumes she's an idiot who thinks deleting emails means they never existed?! Or is this one of those clever political spin-jobs? Do they hope people who realize the emails are just GOP desperation might still think Hillary covered up something else and we just don't know about it? That sounds like American politics.

I thought I had a link to statistics that show motorcycles have fewer accidents per capita than other motor vehicles, but riders are far more likely to be injured or killed in the event of an accident. I'd seen it a few months back, but now everything I see is related to injury and death. I don't have the evidence to claim you're less likely to be in an accident in the first place while driving a motorcycle. Many non-motorcycle related accidents don't get reported because the damage-to-hassle ratio wasn't high enough, but virtually every accident with a motorcycle is serious enough to report. In the light research I did previously, I got the impression that riding a motorcycle vs driving a car is like bungee-jumping vs skiing; not as many accidents, but the ones that happen are so brutal that you have to ask yourself if it's really worth it.

! Moderator Note Please don't use one thread to advertise another. If necessary, simply repeat the relevant quote. Don't respond to this note; just remember not to do this, please.

1. What everyone claims is anecdotal evidence at best. Statistics show motorcycles are less likely to have accidents. 2. Define dangerous. Is it more dangerous to be involved in many minor accidents, or in a few major ones? 3. I wouldn't place any importance whatsoever on people's opinion on a matter like this. 4. Car driver only, because it snows where I live.

Modern corporate-spun "logic" tells people we need an outsider businessperson to get us out of the trouble too many capitalist policies got us into. The arrogance and greed of the corporate sector knows no bounds, and we should understand that this is part of what makes them effective for the economy. We need capitalism, but we don't need it leading the country right now. Now is the time for regulations and policies that tend to our social side, something that's been sorely neglected for the last 60 years. I hope Hillary can do more good socially than harm capitalistically.

Then you should learn to edit yourself better. There is absolutely no reason for you to respond to a thread in the Lounge about explaining something in the English language. Know your limitations! You can't be good at everything, and your English needs a LOT of improvement. Spend your valuable time where it's most meaningful. You are NOT an English teacher.

! Moderator Note The "Genius" proclamation is a forum-awarded rating based on post count, and isn't editable by members. It starts with Lepton and improves as you participate in discussions.

If you're good, they'll keep using the oral device. If they catch you sneaking, they may switch to the automotive version that goes up the tailpipe. Stay strong.

Clinton's "job" should be about shoring up the center of this country, and not catering to the wealthiest capitalist bankers who want even more capitalism in our present economic mix. This is what the Sanders campaign stressed, and why I don't understand why Republicans don't like Clinton more. She'll be very predictable in her conservative approaches, unlike loose-cannon, who-the-hell-knows Trump. If we're stuck with a Congress that would blow up the building to keep it from being saved by anyone else, I'd rather have someone who was pushing for radical reform, the way Sanders was. We'd stand a better chance of meaningful progress for 99% of America. Clinton will be a safe choice, but it will be a choice that pushes the US further right, imo.

! Moderator Note We shut this down to confer behind the scenes about whether the potential for science outweighed the potential for flaming, and decided our membership could be trusted with the task. Let's remember this thread is in Biology, and that it's going to be a lure for political opinions. Those won't be allowed, and if it becomes a problem, the thread will be closed. Thread re-opened.

I blame the media for conflating perspectives/approaches on an issue with the people who have them, and this is a good example of why it can be a very bad thing. By labeling people "conservative", or "socialist", we judge those perspectives based on people, and that's pretty stupid if you ask me. People shouldn't think of themselves this way, these are approaches to issues. Anyone should be able to adopt a liberal or conservative stance on a specific issue. It's nuts to think one approach will be good for everything. Our representation shouldn't come down to the equivalent of answering "C" on all the questions on a multiple choice test. Having a completely capitalist or socialist or communist society would never work, and people who always made conservative choices would never do anything new. Socialism is a series of investments in programs and features the whole country can prosper from. When it makes sense to spend it this way, our taxes support public parks, and interstate highways, and recreation centers with swimming pools, and museums, and other things that most people couldn't afford if they were funded by capitalism. Socialism is the best way to make sure people who will make the best contributions to our society aren't hobbled by circumstances of birth. Unfortunately, many people don't understand why socialism is good when used correctly, so we end up with a "compromised" version of social programs and features that don't do what they should, and give more of a bad name to socialism. They end up looking like handout programs instead of minimum subsistence platforms for educating a purposeful and dedicated citizenry. And this is a big gripe for me, that Clinton won't do enough to educate people about economic systems, or change the capitalist to socialist to communist ratio we have. I think we need to reduce the unfair, unequal influence capitalism has over our policies. Each economic system works best in some circumstances, and none works best in all. It's only natural that capitalism wants to take over; growth is where it works best. We need socialism and even communism because not everything should get bigger or make profit.