Phi for All

! Moderator Note You need to do your own homework. We can offer help, and no more,

And infinitely imaginary.

A couple of decades ago, I think it was 60 Minutes did a special where they took one of their people's taxes and did them 28 different ways, using every option from top tier tax attorneys to H&R Block. They finished by having the guy do his own taxes, and then turned in his info with a request that the IRS calculate the taxes owed. None of the 30 different ways of calculating this guy's taxes matched, they were all different, some by quite a bit. Math shouldn't work that way.

I don't think it has as much to do with understanding as it does with definition. No matter what you do to test if something is infinite or not, you actually have to wait for it to stop or continue forever. You could say it was finite when it stops, but how could you ever say it's infinite without waiting around forever to see?

In the US at least, we have no left to turn to when it comes to major representation of liberal ideas. We can have them, but there's nobody to turn them into legislation that doesn't get "right-washed" into helping Big Business more than it helps the majority. But you're correct, there are alternative candidates, but the two-party system kicks them all to the curb. Nobody wants to think their vote will be wasted. But a flat tax hurts the survivability of lower income people. If you make $30,000, it's harder to live on the remaining $27,000 after taxes than it is for the person who makes $500,000 to live on the remaining $450,000. Flat taxes end up helping the wealthy, despite how reasonable they sound. I still agree with Sanders and Eisenhower. Tax the crap out of the highest earnings. It doesn't prevent the wealthy from going for it, and it keeps more of that crazy money circulating through the economy.

Someone here mentioned f.lux, and I installed that on my computer. It syncs with my local time, so that at sunrise my screen starts using its normal cooler colors, continuing until sunset, when it starts transitioning to redder, warmer colors that are more conducive to relaxing before bedtime. It works very well.

This is an offshoot of modern political conservatism, imo. Focus on the injustice happening on a very small scale while ignoring (and sometimes impeding) all the large scale good that is being done. Fed by agendas rooted in stopping all social programs the wealthy don't participate in (and therefore don't want to pay their fair share of), we get this bizarre effect where conservatives are basically standing on everyone's oxygen tube and wondering why we're all so blue.

You can keep your grapes. They're giving ME figs now! I'm glad to see municipalities using interesting solutions for common problems. Canada and the US are too wealthy overall to have problems with homelessness. Countries can't forget their People.

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.