Phi for All

We'll put some frikkin' lasers on 'em, just in case.

! Moderator Note Discussion should involve more than empty claims and simplistic denials. If you have no more room to learn, please don't post asking a question you're convinced you already know the answer to. This is a science forum. Please step up your game or the thread will be closed.

Yeah, completely my fault that you don't know how scales work. The low side is the heavy (advantaged) side, that's why it's lower.

Isn't pushing up on the heavier side an example of the discrimination you're accusing me of fostering? You're suggesting it compounds the wrong to give women more pay to bring them up to a man's level, but taking pay from men to compensate doesn't? Or is this just another misunderfustication of someone else's POV?

I thought this was an interesting commentary from H. A. Goodman, showing how Clinton's possible indictment by the FBI means Sanders is going to be the obvious choice for the DNC. And for those wanting to do whatever it takes to keep the Republican frontrunner out of the Oval Office, the models show Sanders beating him much worse than Clinton could.

Or you could leave the bar at "village idiot", which makes Cruz and the other guy top out somewhere between "half-wit mosquito" and "dead pill bug". I think a more reliable test would be an FBI profile. Don't let the candidates take a test they can figure out how to beat, which surely includes lie detectors. Instead, have a profiler watch a few hours of video footage from the campaign trail, then tell us what they can about the candidate. I'll bet the FBI has a lot to say about both the Republican front-runners. As long as they can do it without breaking into anyone's iPhone.

There's a big difference in whether it affects the whole follicle or just the shafts. I'm pretty sure the hair grows back if the follicle is unaffected. You should consult your oncologist to talk about palliative care for this side effect to your protocol.

I think The Ugly Duckling is appropriate for swansont: Chicks dig sensitive physicists.

Iirc, there's a good map in the book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. The PBS website for his show may have some good maps as well.

I've heard it can affect facial hair as well, so it's possible it could affect all hair shafts and follicles.

Employers are frugal, not lazy. If they think someone should be able to do a job with half a day's training, they aren't going to pay to train them. This is often a stupid decision, but it isn't really lazy. They have to go through a lot of employees to find the ones that can make do with minimal training, which actually means more work for them. If they trained people the right way, they probably wouldn't have turnover problems, and wouldn't need to keep going to the expense of hiring more people. I don't think your employer gives a squeaky fart about your student loans. Those are yours. A while back, I thought of a scenario that seemed to be a possibility. Big corporate employers would start scouting future employees in high school, and offer to pay for their college if they agreed to work for a contracted period of time afterwards. Then the corporation makes it easy to get a company loan for a new house, and pretty soon you can't leave them because you owe them too much and have too many obligations. In a case like that, where the corporation knows you aren't going to take their training to a different job, they'll probably be more likely to train you better.

Is this homework?

Why should people who buy their homes get benefits and tax credits, when people who rent their homes get no such benefit? To achieve equality, every step you take has to be completely equal in intent as well, according to some. Otherwise it's discriminatory. I guess I look at this more like the scales of justice, I suppose. If the scales aren't in balance (the way they are now), then how can I balance them without giving more to one side and not the other? How to explain to people who think it's discrimination that adding to the women's side of the scale doesn't mean taking it from the men's side? I think there will be a lot of people with this mindset that will oppose free college if Bernie Sanders has his way, merely because it's a benefit they have no interest in taking advantage of. It will seem to discriminate against the ignorant who are happy being that way. It will seem to discriminate against all those people who thought college was out of their grasp and gave up on the possibility. And rather than see this as an opportunity to change that, many of them will continue to think it's beyond them. And many of those will oppose measures to make college free just because of that, no matter the downstream benefits. I had a neighbor who supported increasing mill levies to help the local school system while he had kids in it, yet loudly proclaimed he was done voting for extra taxation now that his kids were all in college. He saw only personal familial benefit from educating smart kids to be effective adults. Opportunities and pay for the same work should be equal. If they aren't, trying to fix it equally isn't possible. You need someone to make up the disparity. It shouldn't be men, it should be employers in this case. They've been the ones benefiting from paying women less than men. And to get back to the OP, what's really "feminist" about all this? Why even identify it like that? Do you refer to Martin Luther King as an African Americanist because he talked about freedom from oppression for African Americans? And why the negative use of the term? Things that you used to love are turning feminist ?! OMG, that must mean rap music is turning the radio listening I love African Americanist!

Here too, and I'm glad. Dealing with an uninsured motorist who runs into your car is a lesson in frustration. They get the benefits of driving a car, but no responsibility to pay for damage they do. Seriously, how do I get $40,000 in damages, and $30,000 in medical bills from someone working a job that won't allow them to buy insurance? That's why it's mandatory, because some folks don't plan for anything but blue skies and plum pudding.

The OP didn't seem to question the purchase of a car, just that it required licensing before one could drive it. I don't think this becomes an issue until one actually has a car. If you don't, you take public transportation or make other arrangements. So how much for just license and insurance? And if you have a job and a car, why don't you want insurance on it? Which jobs allow you to pay for an accident if you have no insurance?

This isn't an inhibitor, it's a regulation I'm very glad is in place. You're dealing with more than a ton of high-speed equipment capable of killing people. If not properly trained, licensed, and insured against catastrophe, all those cars pose a great risk to me and my family. And the government needs to charge for it to pay for enforcement. That seems intuitive enough. How much does it cost to get a driver's license where you live? Why can't job-seekers afford them?

It sounds like the microbots can go anywhere as long as they can project a magnetic field to retrieve them. That's going to help, but I'm not sure they're ready for aquifers. I didn't see how much volume can be 95% cleaned in an hour. Do you suppose they're just used to working with a fixed volume, or do they scale up the number of microbots if there is a larger amount of waste water?

Do you see how treating another group (men in this case) unequally is what caused this problem in the first place? If you aren't willing to help correct the pay disparity, aren't you tacitly approving it? Please offer your idea on how to correct gender pay disparity in a way that satisfies your desire to have your cake and deny it to women too.

We actually had some discussion backstage about some kind of distinction so newcomers would know who could be trusted to provide mainstream answers that won't get you kicked out of school. I think we can set up a user group to show a banner that proclaims this person a Homework Mentor (or something). Our Resident Experts can always be trusted, especially in their areas of expertise. Beware of Mods trying to sell you "atomic clocks". Those things are bulky and look horrible on your wrist. Why sacrifice style for a few orders of magnitude more accuracy? If you're interested in elegant, classic timekeeping, I'm happy to help, for a modest phi....

It's a shame some folks have to come into a discussion with such a chip on their shoulder. They pretend their ideas are what is offensive instead of their behavior. All we want to talk about are the ideas, but their attitude makes everything personal. I hate seeing minds go to waste like this. Perhaps this is the perspective he learned from his "dad'? I don't think it's working.

And I agree with this. I simply dislike having the stance behind the event misrepresented. And in this instance, the view that it's a problem caused by both men and women is not only wrong, it's flat out harmful. I think it encourages men to do nothing about the problem unless they see equal effort from women. This just isn't a case where helping women is a detriment to men, and it's frustrating to see it portrayed that way.

It's like terrorism, Mordred. They use cheap tactics, irrational emotions, and rigor-free bombing of your mainstream explanations, hoping to get a big, disproportionate response from the intellectuals they despise. Cowards, tiny-minded and juvenile, just trying to justify their belligerence and hatred of what they don't understand.

I certainly do. Insisting on treating all equally, at this point in this movement, ignores the fact that something extraordinary needs to happen to correct the CURRENT inequality. The problem with your centrist stance in this case is that NOTHING will be done about the problem, since you're advocating that both genders need equality, instead of women needing some extra attention on their plight because the scales are already tipped against them. Your stance insures that people will do nothing about the problem women are having, because they'll see it as a men and women problem that cancels each other out. Of course the end result should be treating all equally. But you can't seem to see that bringing awareness to unequal pay that abuses women is what is needed to change the situation. You see it as unfair to men, and that frankly baffles me. You'll do nothing to help women stand up for themselves because you think that would be unfair to men. Huh.

Here's something I really want you to embrace. We get SO MANY people through here that were exactly as you describe yourself during your early education, even up to the point where they have your revelation about ignorance vs knowledge. The difference is, most of those folks didn't do what you did, enroll in formal coursework. Instead, they decided to teach themselves science. The result for most is a sketchy, unfounded grasp of popular science that makes them think they understand really complex concepts, based on watching some unreviewed videos and reading some 250 word blog articles. These people are deluded into thinking physics and cosmology are things you can just pick up along the way, with no rigor or methodology involved. Sadly, they show up here claiming science must be wrong, because there are things about it that just aren't very intuitive. So I have to say how proud I am of you for going back to formal education. Learning mainstream science (or whatever you want to pursue at Vanderbilt) is like laying a good foundation for your home. If you want it to last, and mean something, you prepare it to be strong. Congratulations, and stop beating yourself up. It's causing you to approach situations negatively, and you need to be on the lookout for opportunities now. You rarely find those when your outlook is gloomy.

So your tactics so far are to ask a question you don't want answered, but when it's answered anyway, you deny the answer and claim nobody knows. And you think that's a valid approach. And you're really belligerent, claiming you'll be banned on ideas instead of breaking the rules of civility and evidence. You're very par for the creationist course. You bring absolutely no new lies to the table for debunking, choosing to rest on dubious and misrepresented laurels. Meh is a good response to your posts.