Phi for All

! 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.

I don't know if anyone's mentioned it or not, but this may be more of a lawyer thing than a memory thing. In a police/FBI investigation, it may be considered more suspicious if someone accurately remembers some things and answers questions freely about them but for some reason fails to recollect other things with the same detail (which would actually be quite normal). Or a good prosecutor might be able to cast doubt by pointing out that she remembers one classification but not another. By answering (technically) correctly that you don't recall all the details on any question about the past, you establish that you're human & fallable, and that broad questions will get similar replies. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been told by lawyers that the ONLY response to a police officer who pulls you over and asks "Do you know how fast you were going?" is "No sir/ma'am, I don't know." It's the only answer that doesn't incriminate you, admit your guilt, lie, or give the officer any other reason to automatically ticket you, or suspect you of something worse. Investigators are looking to trip you up, and there's no quicker way to paint yourself in a corner than to answer a broad question with a specific answer. Look what happens when scientists make that mistake with popsci reporters.

Strange manner?! Maybe if she was standing still and not talking. I don't care if this treatment was done to Trump, Mussolini, or Mother Theresa. It's the height of intellectual dishonesty to make any kind of judgement along these lines without hearing what was being said for context. I can't believe thinking people wouldn't require such a fundamental piece of evidence.

Democrats controlled Congress under Nixon, and they found evidence of prosecutable misdeeds. A Republican-controlled Congress has been after Hillary for far longer, and for multiple investigations, and haven't found anything similar. Besides implying that the FBI are morons, aren't you also suggesting that our current Republican-controlled Congress couldn't find their ass with both hands?

I'll be voting for Hillary mainly because Bernie Sanders influenced her enough to change her stance on minimum wage and trade deals. For me, the stuff in the OP is just witchhunt craziness, on a par with what the Republicans did to Obama with the birther movement. For Republicans to object to Clinton on the basis of her honesty is the height of hypocrisy, imo. My problems with Clinton would seem to make her a good choice for disgruntled Republicans. She will continue to overpush capitalism as our savior, which I think is a big mistake. I think we need to establish better parameters for when it makes sense to use socialism and even communism in our approach to governing society. Our ideological mixture is too heavily weighted towards capitalism, and we're seeing now how stupid it is for some things to be approached on a for-profit basis (glad to see we're starting to rethink private prisons! Yay!). Clinton will be further right of Obama on military matters, and I dislike the thought of the drone program in her hands (of the Dem/Rep/Lib/Green candidates, I think the two major party candidates would abuse it most - Cinton would be my 3rd choice to control the drones). I'd love to see a campaign to explain why social programs need to be more accepted as part of society instead of tossed off as some kind of charity, but I don't see that on the horizon either. I don't think she'll be reversing any of her husband's tragic telecommunications legislation that lets corporations own news outlets that can influence buyers for their other businesses and private agendas. I doubt she'll bring back federal authority to social programs that Bill gave to the states. I'm not sure what kind of bipartisan corporate shenanigans are going on in banking, with talks of a "new" Glass-Steagal Act, but I dislike how both sides cater to the banks. Neither major candidate will be good for those who think the banks have too much power. It seems bizarre that anyone could believe Hillary Clinton, with all the scrutiny she's endured, isn't worthy of being president for any of the reasons listed in the OP. It's obviously part of the GOP strategy to keep her constantly under investigation, even multiple investigations for the same incidents, even though the investigations never find anything prosecutable. I think admitting a woman is capable of leading the country is a harder pill to swallow for many Republicans than admitting a black man has done an outstanding job as president with what he was given to work with, and the obstructionists he had to work around. I think Clinton's presidency (two terms) will be a lot like Obama's, and the Dems will probably continue to slide right, hoping to pick up all the leaves falling from the GOP crazy tree.

I stay away from sugars if I'm eating high cholesterol foods. LDL receptors don't signal for removal of cholesterol from the blood in the presence of too much sugars, so your cells produce their own besides what's in the blood. I don't know about the fat correlation. I still don't like the single number score they use now. LDL to HDL is a ratio, and I was always told it should be 3:1 or less. There are meds, of course. I hope they've improved, because I used to hear about how the high cholesterol meds raised your blood pressure, and the high blood pressure meds raised your cholesterol levels. Could be just old people bitching though. I've never taken either yet.

... the other Kentucky bourbon.

It's one thing to prevent or slow down the aging process (whatever that means), and another to repair damage done to nerve tissue, or regenerate skin rather than repair through fibrosis. If we had the latter, would it make the former unnecessary? If we could repair tissue damage, wouldn't that include damage from normal aging?

I asked a few questions about your intent. Are you saying I need to read this book to find the answers?

Please stop that. Nobody is saying the only problem is spelling. Here is one grammatical problem in the abstract: This sentence appears to say that it's obvious that this project won't help with the problem even if it's made better. The journal might use this sentence to make the determination that your work will not offer a firm advance in general understanding, and is therefore not appropriate for them to publish.

And in many other cultures, it wasn't. What's your point? Are you trying to show the attraction is universal? Is that what you're after when you ask if men "generally" prefer fairer skin?

Some folks say "Waste not, want not", but I say "You shouldn't use stuff for no good reason because later you might need it and you won't have it and you'll have to go next door and ask to borrow some from Mrs Popodopolis and she'll shake her head but loan you some anyway". That's what I say. No I don't. Because that would be dumb. I don't listen to folks who tell me this is Hell. Faustus believed Mephistopheles when he claimed, "Why this is Hell, nor am I out of it". Look what happened to him.

To me, the abstract seems to say that modern oncology isn't taking advantage of something in their radiotherapy protocols that involves Euclidean space, something that would provide better results in some area through some form of analysis that's very unclear. There are far too many references that aren't adequately explained (the "project" has two methods, but they aren't detailed at all?).

As long as you view it as a test, and not a quit-for-a-bit-and-go-back, you should be OK. It's kind of weird though. It's great that you're excited, but I've never heard of anyone wanting a warm-up to stop anything. Most smokers would be smoking them like they weren't going to be available in a few days. I know I got sloshed the day before I quit drinking. I usually have dessert the day before I go on a diet, too. This is hardly mardy behavior. You're really looking forward to this. Awesome.

I'm not big on broadcasting my weaknesses, but I think one should ask themselves if they'd be willing to make a general announcement, to make a big deal out of being brave & smart. If you aren't, it might not be the right time to quit. You have to watch out for back doors you may have unconsciously left ajar.

If you do this right, smoking simply won't be an option for you anymore. It won't be a door that gets locked, it will be a door that's torn out and bricked over, so opening it up again isn't even a possibility. If the only difference in your going-to-bed routine is the last cig, I think you'll be fine. If you think you're going to lie awake wishing for that last smoke, you can come up with about a thousand reasons why you're better off. You should fall asleep smiling.

Are you re-budgeting the money saved? That's a great way to maintain, being able to point to some new monthly service or treat you get because you quit. I was going to say that planning how to spend that money might be a good just-before-sleep activity, but maybe not. Running numbers in your head might be bad. Do you distract yourself by smoking just before you nod off? That's really dangerous. I'd be afraid I'd drowse off while it's still lit. Or do you smoke your last one, then lay down? In this case, how do you distract yourself? Or is it easier to let your mind wander with a hint of a nicotine buzz going on? Perhaps you should lie down and imagine all the good things that will be happening now that you aren't a poisoner any more.