Phi for All

All the things citizens have to fear from drugs and alcohol are already illegal. You can't be under the influence and drive a vehicle. If you're in public being obnoxious, we have laws against that. If you're of age, just having these things, or even being under their influence, shouldn't be illegal. Plenty of folks (most, I would guess) can handle these substances without disturbing the public. When they're abused, we have the legal framework to handle them. If all the money spent punishing users and enforcing prohibition were spent on education and rehab, you'd remove much of the criminal element, and have a more positive downstream set of benefits, like improved health, and fewer families ruined not only by alcohol and drugs, but by avoidable incarceration as well.

Simply said, the lipoproteins that surround cholesterol for blood transport have two basic jobs in this context, bringing cholesterol to the cells (LDL), and rescuing cholesterol that has gone unclaimed and fallen to the vessel walls (HDL). Normally, our cells have their receptors switched on (like putting out the "Welcome!" mat on the doorstep), looking for an LDL packet of cholesterol. They make the exchange and all is good. If the cells are influenced by hormones like insulin, they switch those receptors off and produce their own cholesterol. Then the LDL packets go unclaimed. HDL packets are empty until they find LDL packets on the vessel walls, where they rescue the cholesterol and put it back into the cycle. If an obese person is eating foods with lots of cholesterol, as well as eating food with lots of sugars that trigger insulin production, then much of the cholesterol will go unwanted and become trapped in LDL packets on the vessel walls. Enough HDL packets in the bloodstream would correct this, but obese people are working against their own systems. The ways to increase HDL are to be more active, lose excess weight, stop smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol, and eat healthier foods all around. So yes, it all works against the obese person because high LDL levels overwhelm low HDL levels and prevent the system from fixing itself in the normal way. HDL might never be needed to save the day if the cells would stop pulling in the "Welcome!" mat and start participating in the exchange with LDLs more cooperatively. Please note this is perhaps oversimplified, and there is better clinical terminology, but I wanted to explain it in a way that dispels the "good cholesterol vs bad cholesterol" misunderstanding. LDL isn't bad normally, it's the way you should be getting this essential substance. I do hope this information is still accurate, and that one of our experts will correct me if it isn't.

! Moderator Note No more spamming for that crackpot book, trixy. We don't allow advertising here, and you've brought this up far too many times. Stop now, please.

It's been a long time since I read up on this, and my knowledge may be outdated. It's my understanding that cholesterol can be manufactured by the cells, as well as being drawn from the blood stream via LDL receptors. If there are no receptors out for cholesterol, the LDL packets can end up collecting on the walls of the vessels. That's where HDL packets come in, retrieving the cholesterol from the LDL packets and bringing it back into circulation. Iirc, one of the hormones that can cause cells to produce their own cholesterol is insulin. In an obese person with high cholesterol, who also has high blood sugar and thus more insulin, might that not result in much of their dietary cholesterol falling to the vessel walls as LDL?

Can you make the distinction between what you support or not personally, and what rights you support in general for the welfare of the people? Because historically, just as many abortions happen whether they're legal or not. It just depends on how safe you want these women to be. Um, probably much like what happened in Portugal. Or what happened in Colorado, Washington, and several other states and marijuana.

My idea starts with a fleet of bright white helicopters capable of carrying lots of cargo and people. The first time one of them visits an area/towns/villages (with the permission of the country it's in), we drop off medicine and doctors, food and representatives to talk to the local people about building a school there for free, to teach reading and writing in the local language, as well as STEM subjects including hygiene, agriculture, and animal husbandry. If we get permission, the first helicopter packs up for it's next new destination, while the second helicopter brings in more food and supplies, including a 3D printer for the school buildings and the engineers to direct the construction. Working with the local population, we design and build a school structure that's right for the area. When all is done, helo #2 packs up, heads back for more materiel, and takes the printer to the next available site. With helo #3, we bring in more supplies and food, some energy efficient appliances like refrigerators, electric kettles, washing machines. We bring in the teachers at this point, who also work with the locals on a good general education process that will help bring the area into the benefits of the accumulated knowledge of their fellow humans. In time, some of the children who graduate from these schools will be given jobs working to establish other schools nearby. I'd like to make the whole operation revolve around the prosperity it brings, so that even in areas where religion and other teachings make conservative people suspicious of modern ideas, the white helicopters are welcomed or at least met without violence. Once we were established and sought after by governments, I would still operate for free, but I would start making the governments where I build the schools set up scholarships for graduates to go on to university (the downstream benefits to the country are huge). This cycle-of-transport strategy was used to pillage African and South American mineral resources by ship, so it should be equally effective against ignorance.

This same argument is used against abortions. Killing embryos is bad, punish those who participate. But in neither case is punishment a deterrent of any significance. Abortions and drug use still happen if you make them illegal, and this also feeds organized crime, and increases risks to safety greatly. Education is one of the things that can make a big difference. And perhaps if your new government is so perfect, people won't have as many reasons to take drugs or abort unwanted children. This is one reason you should NOT focus on punishment at this point. People are supposed to like this new government, right? The positive benefits of legal abortions are evident. And Portugal has made possession of small amounts of most drugs legal, with generally positive results. This is the kind of forward thinking a "perfect government" should have. If it's going to happen anyway, educate people about the effects, and start the teaching as young as possible. You'll minimize the problem instead of making more problems via prohibition.

There is simply no need to go to the expense of trying to force a satellite to hover in place. There are no benefits gained by it, since it will make snagging space debris several orders of magnitude more difficult, expensive, and dangerous. And you still didn't explain your "losing mass" objection, I have no idea what you're talking about. You're starting to sound a bit like a word-salad. I have no idea why you're bringing up scenarios at this point about communication problems, and "a secondary orbital body effecting a mechanical component like a un-documented spacial debris hitting a key thrust-er", since you don't offer a reason why the drones are especially susceptible to these problems where other solutions are not. I think you're over-complicating your message, and making it more difficult to understand.

How exactly are we losing mass to "both launch and communication failures"? Did we lose the radio somehow? Why are you even mentioning failures at this point, since any solution is going to be subject to them? The drones move the debris once they've attached themselves. They don't stay in orbit, they move either out towards the sun or inwards towards the atmosphere. Actually, for the small stuff, the ESA has a chute that can be attached that causes enough drag to destabilize an orbit so the debris falls into the atmosphere to burn up. http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/Clean_Space/How_to_catch_a_satellite Also, here's a little toy from some friends of mine, showing all the satellites and all the junk in a nifty 3D simulation: http://stuffin.space/

Given that other laws would probably cover most anything wrong a religion could do, why is there any need to treat religion any differently than stamp-collecting, or business/lodge meetups, or bowling leagues?

! Moderator Note You've been talking about selling your boxes, and there were items for sale at that site. Our members request that we keep the site advertisement-free, so that's why we have the rule. We appreciate you understanding why we don't want it here.

! Moderator Note Apply some scientific rigor to these moments of "magic", please. Speculations at SFN is NOT about guesswork. Anyone can do that, anyone can imagine this happening. More brain, less imagination please.

The junk is orbiting at around 17,500 mph (28,000+ kph). It would be pointless to design a collector that had to snag its targets from a standstill when we can more easily match the orbits and remove much of the high-speed dangers. Right now the technology is leaning towards a drone booster rocket that can attach itself to a piece of debris and move it into the atmosphere if it's small enough, or out towards the sun if it's too big to burn up in re-entry.

Geostationary satellites are positioned around the equator. Another complaint is that very few nations where these satellites are parked are wealthy enough to afford space programs, so the big guys gobble up that orbital territory and the little guys have little say in what's above them.

There's also the fact that even if you could power this satellite all the time so it "hovers" in place, you increase the chances of other orbiting vehicles and debris hitting your satellite, which creates more space junk each time it happens. Your satellite won't be moving in orbit with the rest, so they'll all be potential collisions.

Here's the way I see it. Capitalism is great for growth and making profits, but it needs to be regulated to make sure it meets its obligations to the People who give it charter and maintain practices that protect us. Communism recognizes that the State (meaning the People) should control certain sectors where profit and growth aren't the priority, but it needs to be regulated so it doesn't continue to nationalize past the point of sound efficiency. Socialism should ensure that all the People get a fair shot at health and happiness through overall prosperity, but it also needs to be regulated to make sure it benefits those who need it most. Big Business has been able to arrange far too much in their favor in the US by deregulating the normal processes that would keep them in check. It's one reason why there are so many conflicting conservative views, because they're all skewed by money motives and profit agendas. Small government that minds its own business + control of embryos + fair free market practices + mega-corp subsidies = something rotten in Denver. The will of the People is not being represented, period. We know this but keep electing the same folks who promised to represent us last time but didn't. The money and its influence is THAT POWERFUL, and we need to stop pretending it isn't, that it doesn't manipulate us into being the very problems we bitch about.

What's wrong with Socialism? We have more of that than Communism, currently in the US.

Are you suggesting a satellite that "hovers" in the same position, while the Earth rotates underneath it?

I've already said I think we're unbalanced now, that Capitalism has been given too much control and that has resulted in the corruption in our political process, as well as the wealth inequality that was unfairly engineered over the last half century. I can't agree about the decent balance point at all. If we'd been dropped in this pot with the water on full boil, we wouldn't have stood for it and we would've hopped out. As it is, we've been sitting here in the pot, letting Big Business slowly turn up the heat incrementally, wages creeping away from their traditional ties to productivity. Middle class frogs. Given what you've hopefully learned about Communism and our current situation, what about this blend of ideologies do you not like? We already use all three of the ones we've discussed, so why isn't it WAY better than a dictatorship? See there? You're already a card-carrying Socialist Communist Capitalist! Welcome to New America!

! Moderator Note It's not legal if you make money off it without consent of those photographed, even in your area. Thread closed per Rule 2.3 "References to the personal commitment of an illegal activity are forbidden".

Honestly, it was raining so hard with high winds, I wanted nothing more than to pull over and wait it out. But I know lightning often strikes the same place twice, so stopping after that one was out of the question. Yours was even closer. What was THAT like?

Making money by filming hot girls who don't know about the camera? You think this is legal, and ethical? I think you're wrong.

My closest encounter was a strike between the north and south lanes of a big interstate highway, maybe 30 meters away. I felt it too, even in my truck, but the worst part was it was night, it was raining heavily, and I couldn't see a thing for a second or two afterwards, except the arcs that were etched across my vision. I was practically looking right at it when it happened.

I think having the State handle education, energy, the military, and healthcare is enough. I don't think we could implement much else until our society starts believing that we're all worth it. Right now, there are too many discriminators who want to judge who is worthy and get rid of the rest somehow.

I see what you did there, poking fun at yourself for missing the big picture by accusing me of it. Good one! Of course, we both know the big picture is that you can't judge people in such broad strokes as "good" and "bad", not if you want to discuss anything meaningful about them. You certainly can't claim any single ideology is good or bad. Modern societies are heavily nuanced with many layers of complexity. These ideologies are tools to be used wisely, knowing they're capable of great harm as well as good. I would argue that the US has too much Capitalist influence, and has for the last 50 years. We're unbalanced because of it, and we need to be smart about how we fix that. The problem is bad, it's caused a lot of wealth disparity, and it's clear to many that this is the time for more socialistic and even communistic strategies. Whenever we've been strongest as a nation (the last time under Eisenhower), the balance between these ideologies has been much better. We can't afford to let any single one get the upper hand, otherwise we know, we know for sure it will turn out bad for us.