Phi for All

The MR16 halogen bulb is a great example. They're used extensively in retail, and in homes where artwork is being displayed. They have mirrored reflectors, they're usually low-voltage, and they run a very hot 50 watts. The LED equivalents haven't been very effective for the price, and some have to have a small fan inside to cool the lamp (if your store is quiet, like your average jewelry store, you can hear them spinning).

This seems to be part of our hardwired sense of fair play. It bothers us when we think others are getting something we aren't, even in a situation like this. I've seen experiments on other animals (mostly primates) where one critter did the task required and got a standard treat, and a second critter did the same exact task and got a really special treat. The first critter won't stand for it very long, and eventually stops doing the task because he envies the second critter and feels unfairly treated.

! Moderator Note Are you planning to pose a non-mainstream idea about chameleons? If not, I can move this thread to Biology.

I've heard of theories that use multiple temporal dimensions as part of the model, but has this proven at all useful?

By my calculations, Starbucks.

This is where the traditional (pre-Nixon) Republican platform veers away from it's "we want a small government that keeps its nose out of our business" plank, in order to appease the religious. How can anyone possibly justify NC's actions as "small government" legislation? I have Republican friends who think this is ridiculous. Further evidence that the religious folks need their own party, since the Republicans aren't a good choice for representation. Part of the gridlock, beyond Reps wanting to block anything the Dems are doing, is the GOP trying to navigate this quagmire in their base. They might have some good ideas, but the evangelicals keep pulling this crazy LGBT/abortion crap that the Republicans can't afford to criticize as vocally as they should.

This is wishful, incredulous thinking, not science. It's very common for humans to desire simplicity in the face of sometimes overwhelming complexity. But that doesn't mean the universe has to comply with human wishes. Science isn't about shortcuts and cutting corners. A theory can only be made so simple before becoming worthless as an explanation for a particular phenomenon.

First off, String Theory doesn't have much support from evidence. It's interesting, but it's not our current best explanation of how the universe works. Second, you're mixing a few other hypotheses like multiple universes into it, which is really confusing. You're picking and choosing what sounds cool to make this idea work. That's not science. Third, spatial dimensions above 3 aren't well understood physically. To add dimensions, you start with length and draw a line, first dimension. To get the second dimension, you take every point along that line and move 90 degrees away, adding width and forming a square. Now take every point on the surface of the square and move 90 degrees away to add height and form a cube. To get a fourth dimension, you'd need to move 90 degrees away from every point on the cube, forming a hypercube. People have an incredibly hard time visualizing this. This guy is a known crackpot spouting nonsense. This is how so much guesswork gets passed off as science. This guy is allergic to evidence and prefers to wave his hands a lot.

It's not the first time I've encountered this "I don't get it, so it should be changed" argument from Eldad. I've tried reason and I've tried encouragement. This time I tried to show the absurdity, but I guess I failed.

! Moderator Note We want to be clear. Discussion at this site is based on the written word and mathematics, for clarity and ease of use. Videos can be extremely cumbersome to deal with when it comes to quoting and understanding the spoken words. What most can read in seconds becomes minutes of spooling through video. We have to care for the convenience of the majority over the convenience of a few. Thanks for understanding.

Only partly. It was misquoted that way to you in the link.

Most people here who correct misinformation aren't doing it to make you look bad. They're doing it to make you look better next time. There should never be any ridicule implied in correcting a mistake. Mistakes we make often insure we understand a subject more thoroughly. Mistakes should never cause guilt or ill-feelings in these instances. I would hope people come here because of a high-standard of posting. I hate sites where folks can just spew hateful nonsense, or claim their wishful thoughts are reality.

The article was about GOP lawmakers, not Republican men.

I don't think the average person who dislikes Clinton is amenable to changing their minds about her. But I think that same person who won't vote Sanders is because they don't understand his flavor of socialism, preferring to lump all of it under the "Communist" blanket. I feel like that person just needs to actually listen to an explanation of market socialism and their whole perspective on Sanders could change. He's still the most popular rated candidate overall. And the least listened to, and the most misunderstood.

Terrorism is a Red Herring that's been enormously effective at causing a lot of chaos that creates climates of opportunity for opportunists. Terrorism is being wielded as a tool, not a weapon, one that gives the illusion that we need militant leadership to protect what we love from extremists who can't even muster enough support from their own people to field a proper army. It's being used as a tool for obstructionism, which also happens to make a lot of money for a select few. And any suggestions to the contrary, like more negotiations with countries that harbor terrorists, get pounced upon as weak and ineffectual (even though the Soviet Union fell more to economics rather than active warfare). Once again, it's conservatives throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars at a handful of extremists, and then convincing themselves that it's the liberals who are at fault. Cause the problem, blame everyone but yourself, ignore reality, and consider yourself a wise American citizen. Manipulated Conservatism.

This is three links talking about the same single piece of legislation, not "them blocking laws". Let's be clear here. You should investigate these if you're going to post them as evidence. This one was rejected because we already have legislation in place that vets refugees from Syria adequately. It's a freaking two year process that's already very thorough. This maneuver was fear-mongering after the Paris attacks, suggesting that we're letting just anybody in, and that we don't already have Homeland Security going over these folks with a fine-toothed comb. If you don't believe this, perhaps you could show where our current vetting process is flawed.

! Moderator Note If you already have a thread on this, why are you starting this one? It's against the rules to use one thread to advertise another. It makes it very confusing to have two conversations about the same subject. Why do you think both are necessary? Also, you're proposing a pet theory in the mainstream sections. New ideas should go in Speculations so our students don't get confused.

This is an incorrect assumption, but it will teach you a lot to investigate its veracity yourself, and find that there is no such equivalence with liberal policies. I sincerely encourage you to look for such studies. It's a real eye-opener. To be clear, I'm not saying conservative measures are always bad. But I think it's horrible that a person would want to pigeonhole themselves by claiming to always be conservative. It's the issues that should be considered conservative, liberal, progressive, not the people discussing the issues. I think most people who brand themselves that way think it sounds safe, sophisticated, and savvy. I think they equate "conservative" with "cautious choices", "common sense" and "wisdom". But the upshot really is that "conservative" means "vote against any kind of tax increases or stronger regulations on your employer, because they might have to fire you". Businesses are still preaching fear while posting record profits, and sitting on huge reserves of cash. I think conservatives are being played by Big Business, so BB can have their cake (high production, dedicated inexpensive workers, high profits) and eat it too (lower taxes, less regulation, get others to pay your fair share). I knew somebody would misapply the analogy. I'm not suggesting it's conservatives causing traffic jams on the highway. I'm trying to equate, in a very limited way, the way some people cause traffic while thinking it's everyone else's fault, with the way conservatives behave in US politics.

Did I miss where some kind of transgender gate was left open, and they suddenly started using public restrooms? I'm guessing they've been using the bathrooms of their choice for quite some time, and it's not been a problem until conservative fear of possibilities prompted this inane legislation.

In much the same way, the term "nose" is very confusing, since it sounds like it's a plural word, like "eyes", but you only have one of them. And "nose" sounds like it's intelligent, but it's not. It runs but has no legs, and it constantly smells. Therefore, we need to start using the term "Donald" instead of "nose", because I said so.

A recent study of traffic that determined most of the gridlock on the highways is caused by a few jerks driving badly and forcing everyone else to put on their brakes, robbing the system of its momentum. I say jerks mainly because these folks are completely oblivious to the fact that they ARE the problem they're spending so much time complaining about! They're so wrapped up in themselves and what THEY want, they fail to recognize themselves as the source of it all. When it's pointed out to them, they deny it vehemently, and insist that if everyone drove like them, everything would be fine. Are political conservatives being the tailgaters, lane-changers, and cutter-offers in the political sense, causing everything to grind to a halt in a sea of brake lights, not realizing they're the culprits? People who label themselves as conservative seem to be at the heart of most of our woes in the US politically right now, yet they vehemently deny it's their fault, insisting it's all the folks who aren't conservative who are the problem. I think they're mis-applying the broad-brushstroke conservative label, the way some folks call themselves "skeptics" as a way to remain negative forever about a subject. I think this leaves them very vulnerable to emotional appeals by media and Big Business. Most people labeling themselves as conservatives don't seem interested in educating themselves regarding what they're conservative/skeptical about.

It's rough on alternatives when gas is this cheap. We took a ten year break from EVs for similar reasons, but then gas spiked to US$5/gal and WHAM! Within a couple of years we had more hybrid options and a few affordable fully electric models. This is, of course, what we should be using subsidies for, to promote new markets. Instead, we subsidize oil, sugar, banks, all kinds of highly profitable sectors that are already doing very well (and would continue to post record profits without the freebies). We need to help alternative fuels with subsidies, and stop propping up older technology. Modern business models encourage Big Oil, who also controls most of the effective large format battery technology, to keep it all status quo for as long as possible to reap the most profit from existing infrastructure and processes. Progressives have been after fair subsidies for quite a while. The problem as I see it is many conservative hypocrites argue for Big Business subsidies with half their face, while screaming about fair capitalist market practices with the other half. Big Businesses are hardly competing fairly when they get so much money from the taxpayers. No more lobbying for special subsidies for Big Business, and thoughtful subsidies for promising new technology that helps us continue our civilization without destroying the environment in which it exists.

The OP is implying that there are people he's encountered who he suspects of feeling a real sneeze coming on, and in the brief time as it builds, they make the malicious choice to aim the sneeze at a random stranger (perhaps him?). It's hard to imagine it being a successful pattern of behavior, so it's equally hard to imagine it's intentional or premeditated. It's not as hard to imagine it's an isolated incident with an unspoken motive.

I'm not sure that extends to purposeful sneezing.

Because of the nature of LEDs, if you prefer an incandescent light it's probably because you haven't seen its equivalent in LED. If by "bright" you mean strong, more illumination, you can find a stronger LED wattage with higher lumens to match the level you prefer. If by "bright" you mean more like bluer sunlight than redder firelight, again, LEDs can be found in many color temperatures, for whatever lighting conditions you want to create. Most of my commercial customers prefer a bluer light to help with clarity and focus on the job. Most residential customers want a redder light for relaxation.