Phi for All

It's not being close-minded to acknowledge that the Romans were less ignorant than "the ancients".

The real success in terrorism lies in all the help they get from American conservatives.

Hard to blame dad if he wasn't there (was he?). But I'm a dad and if that were me and my child, I'd hold myself to blame if my daughter ignored zoo safety. We had annual passes to the zoo while my daughter was young. She got excited like all kids, and there were some close calls. I wouldn't have blamed anyone but myself if she'd ever gotten over a barrier though. I thought everybody knew they're minimal security and that you need to make sure your kids stay off them. The zoo hadn't had a problem with the barrier before. Ever. When I said I blamed the mother, I had just read testimony that said a bystander heard the boy tell his mother he was going over the barrier and down to the water, and that the mother responded simply by saying NO. So there was a warning the mother missed, and it seems to be the only real negligence involved. Other than the fact that any child that gets taken to the zoo should be reminded by their parent or guardian about the warnings that are all over the zoo about staying behind barriers.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations due to the non-mainstream science involved. Please help everyone out with your non-standard terminology. What do you mean when you say "realms"? Since this is a science discussion site, can you provide any evidence to support your ideas? Please show this as well, since I can guarantee someone is going to ask for it. You don't need to respond to this note, I just wanted to help get you started on the right foot in this discussion.

You're the young person who is currently being exposed to multiple political perspectives you aren't used to hearing in the home. You're only the idiot if you don't think about them, and look at them objectively. OK, sounds plausible. First thing to look at is something comparable. The Bwindi Impenetrable Forest in Uganda sounds just like that. Except it just makes it difficult to get through, not impossible. The border between Uganda and the DRC is still hotly disputed. It would create a lot of firefighter jobs though. This might actually work as a curb to immigration from Mexico (which is negative, and doesn't need curbing). They might not need to come to the US if they find jobs at the border making bamboo furniture.

It's amazing how often this very subjective objection overrides the objective goals of job creation, immigration, and improving the economy overall. I still say the worst part about the Donald is that he lowers the intelligence level of any discussion. My initial reaction to the Scott Adams video was "Hey, let's start the 'Carpetbagger Don' meme to spoil his base in the racist South!" I shouldn't be stooping to stupid. Oooh, there's the meme. "Don't Stupe!"

So Hillary "exaggerates quite a bit", Sanders had 0% of the "Pants on Fire" type of lies that Trump is infamous for. Yet you prefer the liar. OK. I also don't know what you mean by Hillary being "trim". Are you talking about her body, or is this a youthful term I'm unfamiliar with? Finally, you should understand that without immigration, this country would have died out long ago. Immigration is important to every country that wants innovation and progress. Everything we allow that undermines the attractiveness of the USA as a place where immigrants can come to make their dreams come true hurts us deeply as a nation. We're a superpower because of large scale immigration. You're right about the knee-jerk reaction to "immigration", though. Now that you're aware of it, notice the same things about all controversial issues. You can't say "welfare" or "abortion" without the same thing happening. This should be a signal to you that there are levels of complexity you probably aren't considering.

As an early contributor to what is now a much more deeply understood process, Darwin is an easier target for creationists. They usually pretend that Darwin's work is the state of the art so they can criticize the current theory. It's fallacious logic, but I'm not sure the fallacy has a name. It's almost a genetic fallacy, where the theory of evolution is suspect because Darwin didn't know everything we know today.

When you say, "Either way, they still lie", you're attempting to make Clinton's lying on a par with Trump's, like it's OK because they all do it. This is NOT the case. All politicians need to have their feet held to the fire, but it's disingenuous to claim that a 2% Truth ratio is just as bad as a 22% ratio. You lost. They were Eisenhower Republicans. In fact, I'm a Sanders supporter mainly because his policies are similar to Ike's, not because he's running as a Democrat. It's not a big deal, but I find most young people vote the way their parents do until they go to college, where they're exposed to more than the one ideology. I also can't find anyone who supports Trump for rational reasons. They say it's because he's a businessman, but he's a very sleazy businessman, as anyone he's owed money to will tell you. They say it's because he speaks his mind, but when was that EVER part of diplomacy? And when he lies so often, speaking his mind doesn't sound so great anymore. They all seem to be emotionally invested, but can't say why a Trump presidency would be anything other than a global embarrassment of national proportions. There's no part of being POTUS that he would excel at.

! Moderator Note It's obvious this thread has quickly run its course, passed it's freshness date, and gone sour. Glad the event was only "near", Alan. Stay safe. Thread closed.

This is a big part of what's going on (among others, since that's usually how senses work). My corgi (enormous ears) will suddenly show up at my side, wanting comfort for no reason (which is odd), and then a few minutes later the cats are at my side as well. A few minutes after that and I can hear the distant thunder myself. It's my three-stage storm warning technology.

No. Politifact also has the same treatment of Clinton. If you don't think the lies are that important, then take a look at how they both stack up in the True/Mostly True/Half True categories. It's a much better gauge of how much you can trust what they've been saying. But your dad is voting Trump?

! Moderator Note The OP has failed to support the assertions made in accordance with the rules of the Speculation section. Specifically, continuous claims of errors were never supported by evidence or examples. It's clear that many gaps in mathematics knowledge are hampering successful discussion here. Thread closed. You are not welcome to bring this subject up again until you've studied it quite a bit better.

! Moderator Note Please do this, or something substantive like this, instead of using the poor methods you're employing now. You aren't answering the concerns about this whole idea being a non-starter. More rigor. Otherwise this thread will be closed.

Don't you mean exactly 4 cubits?

What do you think of CNN's chyron fact-check tactic? If it's successful with Trump, it should be used to inform viewers about all the candidate's statements. I don't want to see anyone running for POTUS getting away with outright lies just because so many people still look to the news for their information and don't question what is said on news shows. I think this might go a long way towards restoring some semblance of confidence in the media.

Rather than rehash the big lies he's told so you can pretend they don't actually matter, I would suggest you work on the "missing the point" part. I'll give you a hint, it's all about confirmation bias. You've decided he's OK and that you're going to vote for him, so you want to dismiss the reality of what virtually everybody (including conservative outlets like FOX News) is saying about his lies. It's readily apparent, if you're following the news at all, that the D hates to have his words in the past used against him in the present. It's one thing to say your views have changed over the years, or that new evidence brought to light has changed your opinion, but it's an outright lie to say you opposed the Iraq war when there is video footage of you at the time claiming differently. The same goes with his statement about Japan becoming a nuclear nation, then later claiming Clinton is a liar for saying he did. That's an example of the Trump double-down, where he lies, then not only denies it but lies again by calling his opponent a liar for mentioning it. The D is willing to go to any lengths not to be contradicted, which is a horrible attitude for a statesman. He plays so loosey-goosey with the truth that none of our allies are expressing any confidence in him (Russia and North Korea love him though). The fact is, if the D becomes POTUS, it will most definitely strengthen both Russia and China, since the US will cease to be a trustworthy asset, encouraging European countries to do less in tandem with the US. The dollar is threatened as well, since he's hinted that defaulting on loans is perfectly acceptable, but then lied and said he didn't. He undermines confidence with his bullshit salesman manipulations and his passing acquaintance with the truth.

! Moderator Note I'm going to stop this here. B. John Jones, you really need to understand science better before criticizing it. You have this caricature of it in your head that just doesn't match reality. It's not uncommon, but it doesn't help you learn anything. Also, we make it quite clear that religion and religious writings aren't topics we bring up in the science sections, including Speculations. There is nothing in the Bible that can help you with this topic. You continue to make things unclear with your terminology, and you're now preaching more than supporting your premises. You've been given more than sufficient answers to revise your idea. You should know where you've gone wrong. Without additional supportive evidence, please don't bring this subject up again. Thread closed.

Supportive evidence that excessive hair gel use can adversely affect the senses, in particular one's sense of humor.

This is why we can't have nice things. If anyone wants this re-opened, PM me.

How can you be sure it hasn't happened? I think there have been hominid fossils in close proximity to coconut shells. I could understand how oil could wipe out a whole species.

I used to think I'd relate if someone called me an atheist, but the few times it's happened have left me a bit disgruntled. People assume I'm declaring religion and its followers are stupid, instead of not being interested in the slightest. A lot of religious people have an "for or against" mentality that has no room for indifference.

One of my best buddies used to think he had to act like James Bond when he dated. He'd pick them up in a sports car, take them to an expensive restaurant, go out dancing, really put on the Ritz. But he's a down-to-earth type that prefers a good BBQ to lobster, and he doesn't have a pretentious bone in his body. The type of women he was looking for could tell something wasn't right. He used to complain to me that he could get first dates, sometimes second dates, but even though he spent a fortune and was impeccably Bond in his behavior, he couldn't find anyone interested in sticking with him. He eventually went through a period where the only dates he went on were with strippers, so he's my source on breast augmentation surgery. The strippers knew the Bond thing was fake, but they didn't care. My buddy grew out of it eventually, and just started letting his warts show. He's happily married now.

I think the key to connecting with people is to be yourself (which isn't really a physical, boob-related sort of thing). Nobody is interested in you pretending to be anything other than yourself (unless you're in a play). Many people think they need to "act" a certain way, but if that's not the way you normally are, it will seem unnatural and that's usually what turns people off in initial encounters. I know it sounds like a cliche, but any relationship that has a chance of lasting needs to be honest. I can give you a trick to keep conversations going. Make sure the questions you ask can't be answered with a "yes" or "no". Ask open ended questions, like "What do you think of when you look at this painting?" instead of "Do you like this painting?" This will give you time to listen and learn about this person, give you more opportunities for more questions, as well as opportunities to talk about yourself. One thing I've noticed about folks who have a hard time with conversations. They're unusually worried about making mistakes, or forgetting, or misunderstanding, or falling into an awkward silence because they think they aren't interesting enough. If this is you, it's mostly in your head, for starters, since you certainly are an interesting person when you have the time to write it down. And often these folks are so desperate for things to talk about that they grab onto something said earlier and start forming what they want to say about it, before the other person has finished talking. This can mean they miss something said later that will make their reply sound strange, which is what they were worried about in the first place. Does that make sense? I knew a woman once who's eyes would sort of de-focus as I talked with her, and I could tell that something I said was prompting her to formulate a reply. Everything I said once her eyes unfocused went in one ear and out the other. Once I realized she was doing it, I saw that she did it a LOT. It was frustrating. Don't be afraid of silences. Don't be afraid of not immediately having a great response. In fact, if someone asks you something and you visibly take the time to think about it, you'll probably gain more respect from them. Not all conversation goes as smoothly as it does on scripted TV, so cut yourself a break and know that listening is just as important as talking, maybe more so. And I'm betting you're a very good listener when you're being yourself.

But he has a good point. The unhealthy part of a chicken nugget is the breading, and that's also the part that gets gross when the moisture from the chicken is absorbed. Perhaps cooking the chicken tenderloins without the breading would solve both issues? Keeping any kind of sandwich fresh is hard. A hot sandwich like a grilled cheese is just never going to be as good cold. If your son likes the cheese and bread part, can you avoid grilling it? Again, that's the part that makes it eventually turn out gross, and the extra oil or butter from grilling isn't healthy, so perhaps that part can be skipped? If you feel the need to put more effort into these meals to make them palatable (you gotta love a parent willing to pump the air out of a container to make a better sandwich for their child), perhaps you could try some artful preparation. I couldn't get my daughter to eat raw carrots or apples until I started cutting them right. She'd ignore an apple until I cut it up in slices, then put it back together minus the center, and call it a puzzle apple (sometimes I put a grape in the center for her to find). I also started cutting little shapes out of other raw veg so it looked like little characters or animals (carrot with shredded hair and a nose with a mouth cutout). If the food captures their attention first, it's easier to get them to eat it. Something I never did (but you should) is take a culinary course in garnishes, and learn how to cut little rosebuds or other cool shapes out of healthy food. I was very proud when I discovered this. Being a guy, I always thought it was stupid when restaurants did that froo-froo garnish you aren't supposed to eat, and I never would have believed there was a practical application for it. But parents learn that anything that puts a smile on a child's face is worth it.