Phi for All

A folded paper towel can do that and be a napkin.

I should have seen that one coming after so many anti-Trumpets suddenly jumped on board after the NRA endorsement. There's bound to be a rash of politicians who now think emulating or even outdoing him is the wisest decision. I have to point out the hypocrisy in one of the latest moves. The PGA wants to move their tournament away from a Trump resort to one in Mexico City because sponsors don't want to compete with the Trump brand or expose themselves to political ramifications. If you can't make money, it sounds like a wise business move on the PGA's part, but the Donald is calling it stupid, saying the PGA is only interested in money (?!?!), and making his signature cowardly threats like, "I hope they have kidnapping insurance". It's OK for his resorts to make money, but he's going to criticize anyone else's attempts to do so. He's not even a good capitalist.

We have a discussion about that going on over here.

Not to change the subject from surgery, but perhaps a change of venue is a more appropriate move. The shallow guys are hanging out in bars and gyms. Have you tried museums and libraries? The guys there are hoping you'll stop by so they can tell you how great you look already.

Yes Magazine had a great article pointing out how Trump is ruining democracy in the US with his unchecked use of logical fallacies. As we all know here on the forums, when a poster starts using strawmen, ad hominems, hasty generalizations and other fallacies, you no longer have a discourse. It's not an argument anymore, it's a circus where the lion-tamer makes everyone jump through meaningless, flaming hoops. If this becomes a legitimate way to win the presidency, how will it affect future candidacies? Without reasoned debate about the problems we face, how can representative democracy pretend to be at all effective anymore? With the media giving him even more free air time every time he does it, isn't this behavior going to eventually replace meaningful political election processes? The media aren't going to kill the orange goose, so what can be done to show that Trump's quasi-arguments aren't really answering anything? For most of these fallacies, the damage is done once the words are out there, but at the very least we need a way to show voters how these pitiful attempts at reason are short-circuiting any kind of grown-up discussion of the issues. His base doesn't seem to care, and they seem proud that their master is able to confuse and rattle the opposition, even if he's doing it in a schoolyard bully, neener-neener sort of way. They take the fact that Trump leaves so many people sputtering to mean he's brilliant, rather than meaning he's irrational and you can't have a substantive dialogue with him.

You still aren't acknowledging the rest of the equation. I can make a barrier a child can't breach. It's going to remove you completely from the open air experience of the zoo, and cost ten times what it does now. Minimum. Remember these new barriers and protections have to go on all the sidewalks near roads, also bridges, train stations, everywhere there may be children who can't understand what a guard rail means, or who have parents who might not teach them. Bridges and train tracks are magnets for teens, which is another group that tends to ignore any safety warnings. Let's face it, a guard rail is basically saying, "Yeah, I know you can go right over me, but this is the least amount of protection I can give without raising your taxes or spoiling your view, so please use some common sense and stay behind me". Kids aren't going to get that, so they need to be taught at home and at school. Part of the exchange for using public resources is acknowledgement that nature has sharp edges. We can't afford to protect people's children sufficiently if they can't be bothered to keep them behind guard rails.

From a marketing standpoint, the whole discipline was branded incorrectly. Supposedly, the name came from the Greek "plasitkos", to mold or give form. But most people associate it now with "artificial" (possibly "superficial"), and plastic-looking. Cosmetic or reconstructive surgery are probably infinitely easier to sell as procedures. Apparently, the idea of plastic as something malleable predates the use of the term for materials made from oil. I also think "plastic" has come to have other negative meanings, the way "natural" has come to mean "anything not sullied by humans".

But that's not the whole equation here. You have to build a barrier that anyone ambulatory who can't be reasoned with can't breach, that also lets reasonable visitors enjoy the sights. Seriously, providing authoritative warning via barriers like guard rails (or crime scene tape, or safety seals on medicine) puts the burden of training on the parents. If we can't agree that those should be enough, even in cases like this one, then what's next? I seriously thought, well maybe they need to put an alarm in those bushes in case someone does climb the guard rail, something to alert everyone that the first defenses had been breached. That may not have stopped this four-year-old though. Maybe another guard rail before the moat? But the first one didn't work, did it? Because for some reason, this child's mother hadn't simply made it clear that humans always stay behind the guard rails when they visit animals at the zoo. A zoo is a public resource. I don't think it's too much to encourage the public to train their children to be respectful of wildlife, the same way they should if they were out camping. Otherwise, we'd never be able to afford places like this, and might not enjoy the experience nearly as much if we could.

I don't think creativity works in science without the rigor of study, no matter how much we might wish for it. Once you have the knowledge, you can apply your creativity, but without the foundational information, creativity just flails around with nothing much to talk about.

Exactly. If you're fairly certain your child is going to ignore the rules to stay behind guard railing, your plan should NEVER include places with guard railing. And if you can't avoid them, you go out of your way to keep the child from climbing. It has to be that way. Can you imagine going in to any place of business and telling them that the guard railing they installed per building codes just isn't going to be adequate to handle YOUR child?

You'd have to go to ridiculous lengths to avoid what happened here. By age 4, anyone would expect a child to understand that you don't climb over barriers everyone is telling you not to climb over. Guard railing can only help if you stay behind it. I blame the mother in this situation, but even she didn't take her own child seriously when he said he was going to climb over the fence. For whatever reasons (the saturation of "climbing walls" as recreation for children?), that little boy was insufficiently schooled in how to behave at the zoo. I don't blame the zoo for that, nor do I blame them for this incident. You can't effectively put alarms in every place you've warned people not to go.

! Moderator Note Untrue, off-topic, and it's preaching to pick one religion from many for your general observations in this thread. Please observe the rules you agreed to when you joined.

! Moderator Note We gave you a chance to provide evidence instead of using these tired, asinine, internet chat tactics (like trying to discredit the moderators when it looks like they're about to ban you). You chose the low road (again). So have another vacation while staff discusses whether your intellectual dishonesty is worth wasting even a minute more on you.

! Moderator Note More intellectually dishonest tactics. We prefer evidence to support extraordinary claims. It's in the rules you agreed to. Enforcing the rules is not an attack. More rigor on your part is needed.

[ ! Moderator Note Please stop these intellectually dishonest tactics. You brought up Marx (in a very weird way), and now you're accusing others of doing it to obstruct the discussion. Persistent use of this and other fallacies to "win" an argument are against the rules you agreed to when you joined. If you have a problem with our rules, Report this post but don't discuss it here.

! Moderator Note Let's make this official. Religion topics don't belong in Other Sciences, so start another thread in Religion if you wish to discuss that aspect further.

Oh, well, that's different. I need more Magic Car Racers. Bring it on!

Aphotonic?

These types of agreements historically turn a few very wealthy people into ridiculously wealthy people by taking the extra from workers beneath them. Meetings where the public is not invited to discuss use of public funds rarely works out well for the public. Your leaders are invited, they represent your vote, but do they really represent how you feel about the continuous relaxation of regulations and taxation of Big Business? The ultimate goal of Big Business is to pay no taxes at all, have the public pay for infrastructure improvements, as well as subsidize continued corporate success. Should we be comfortable with such heavy influence from the Capitalist part of our hybrid governments?

! Moderator Note This is a perfect example of the problem noted earlier. You believe you "clearly distinguished" something that makes no sense. If you are going to make these distinctions up, please explain them. Nobody knows the terms you're using, there is no "formal science", and it's unclear why you think there is. The fact that you think you're being "clear" is the leading contributor to why you aren't. Please try harder to use correct terms, or ask questions instead of making assertions. You need to understand that you are NOT being "clear".

! Moderator Note You aren't communicating your ideas very well. Most of this thread is people asking what you're talking about, and you insisting you're making perfect sense. Part of the problem is your mis-use of terminology. What do you mean by "strongest darkness"? How is the "strength" of darkness measured? Also, people have asked you what you mean by "dome". If you're going to use your own terms, you need to be able to explain them to people who are used to scientific terms. Also, when someone asks you to explain something, it helps nobody for you to say, "I've answered your objection elsewhere". Obviously, you haven't, or they wouldn't have asked for you to explain it again. And please lose the attitude. The others in this discussion want some clarity, you're using unfamiliar terms, so have some patience and please aim for more clarity and rigor. No need to respond to this note in thread, just help us understand what you're talking about.

This section is for topics specific to science education, but you should be able to ask your questions in the appropriate sections. Anatomically Correct Aliens in Biology, Blowing Up the Sun in Physics, and How Many Planets is Too Many? in Astronomy, for instance.

You may want to mention this to the other four states that will be decriminalizing in 2016. One wonders how they were able to convince the voters if what you claim is true.

Although Clinton has the delegates, polling indicates that she's not the smartest choice for the party. Sanders is still more popular against Drumpf, and if Drumpf doesn't get enough delegates and the GOP runs Kasich or Cruz, Clinton loses to Kasich in most polls. Sanders beats anyone the GOP has. Is this an indication that the party is interested in backing Clinton for reasons other than winning the presidency? Despite having the delegates, there are too many other "lesser evil" voters out there that would do something crazy before casting a vote for Clinton. It seems certain that if Big Business can't have Drumpf, or someone else who will keep taxes and regs at a minimum, they'd rather have Clinton than Sanders. By keeping Sanders away from the nomination, the DNC is proving it's goal isn't to have a Democrat as president as much as it is to ensure that whoever gets elected will "play ball". There's only one candidate who hasn't accepted Big Business money.

I don't want to go off-topic with this, but you need more accurate sources. Colorado's legalization has been a success in virtually every way. Even conservative sources like FOX News agree.