Phi for All

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.

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.