Phi for All

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.

The most elegant solution, of course, is that all the conservatives who are bothered by the thought of someone violating their birth certificate classification should just wear Depends. Then when you see them smile, you know they're actively protecting themselves from sexual predators.

On a commercial scale, the savings are even bigger, since businesses tend to use more peak power from the utilities, so saving more energy during the day pays off bigger. I encourage commercial clients to stay away from LEDs that mimic old Edison technology (screw-ins) and fluorescent tube tech (although the 4' LED equivalents aren't bad), and opt instead for more integrated fixtures that take advantage of what solid-state technology offers. There are some nifty kits that replace the bottom part of a 2' x 4' fluorescent tube troffer (so many of those in the US!), which usually has 3-4 fluorescent tubes, with an integrated LED array and a better optical panel. The top half stays, connected to the existing power supplies and switches, the ballast is removed, and the new bottom panel is hooked up and snaps in place like the old bottom panel. This gives an integrated LED array for about 50 watts, as opposed to about 72 watts for LED tubes, or 128 watts for fluorescent tubes. The light levels are about equal. The kits are about $95 each.

What's in the male sneeze that isn't in the female sneeze, and why would it warrant murder? I'm assuming it's something lethally toxic, and that you're going with the self-defense plea. Also, unless someone gives you obvious clues (which the OP rules out with his description of the event), how would you know (or even suspect) that they're using an actual sneeze maliciously? The scenario sounds highly unlikely. You're frustrated by your boss at work, so you wait till the bus ride home to sneeze on a stranger? It sounds ludicrous to think there wouldn't be any consequences.

Everything people fear about these encounters is already against the law. It really boils down to using the restrooms for the use for which they were intended. Do people really think access is what's stopping people from being sexually assaulted in restrooms? Urinals are a bit of a monkey wrench. They're designed for only half the public, but they seem to serve a long-range purpose (men's room lines are almost always shorter at a stadium because of the extra facilities). Perhaps in the future we could design stall-only unisex bathrooms, plus a urinal-only choice for express service?

! Moderator Note It's been mentioned that your habit of breaking up your sentences so often with additional lines is difficult to follow. If the above is true, perhaps you could use normal paragraphs, which are much easier to follow and requires less scrolling. Do you want people to read, or do you want them to scroll? You're losing valuable attention which is one of your most important assets here. And seriously, why can't you tell us what's wrong instead of just claiming it's wrong? So far you're just waving your hands. It's one big Argument from Incredulity, and not very rational.

I think there's a danger in dismissing anything because it may have been motivated by concern for the way it comes across to people. Too often, a defensive atmosphere created by insensitivity could have been easily avoided by a better turn of phrase. I look at this as the good side of "spin". It's manipulative, but with good intentions. It seems clear in this case that the new term is more accurately descriptive, while also encompassing more types of conditions. A better, more reality-based explanation than we had before, the goal of science.

Oddly enough though, I've found that when I use reason and sound scientific methodology to reach a conclusion, it's fairly easy for me to change what I trust if evidence shows more support for a better conclusion. I was committed to the first conclusion until the second showed itself to be superior. And conversely, when I reach a conclusion using a more emotional, or faith/hope/wishful thinking approach, it's very difficult to convince me I might be wrong. Evidence to the contrary falls on deaf ears, and even confirms that my emotional assessment is correct. It forms a conviction, strongly held and impervious to reason, and self-reinforced because we tell ourselves that faith is a good thing. I think there is a danger in using faith if it might make you change the course of your life based on those convictions.

Trefil's stance on AGW doesn't do anything to encourage me. I haven't read this book, but I find his position at odds with evidence, and his deviance from the consilience isn't well explained.

! Moderator Note Sorry, it's against our rules to require members to watch videos before discussing a topic. We aren't here to promote your channel. SFN is a discussion forum, so please use this medium to give us an overview of what you want to discuss. We can read and reread your prose, and respond to select portions of it easily. Nobody wants to watch your video over and over to get the quotes right. I hope you'll respect the wishes of the site owners. No need to respond to this note in the thread. If you feel it's unfair, use the Report Post feature.

Good catch, +1. And it's something else the glass bowl probably blocks, along with the air currents. I'm also curious why he needs to put his hands so close if he's using his mind to move the wheel? Do the psi powers come through his brain and out his fingers? Surely if this was a mental ability, his hands would be unnecessary.

There's a difference though. Science promises the knowledge is there for you to explore if you suddenly feel the need to verify it. I think there's a difference between faith and trust, and this is a big part of that difference. You can trust science because you could check the evidence and methodology yourself, as many many skeptics before you have. Trust isn't blind the way faith is. Trust wears fine-print spectacles.

I don't accept your word on this. You need to rule out that it's your breath or your hands or any other outside influence moving the wheel, since the wheel is designed to move via air currents, not "psi" forces that can't be measured. Have you figured out why you can't affect a feather, or a needle, both of which are lighter than your aluminum wheel? What kind of force moves heavier objects like the wheel but can't move a feather? So far, I think you have nothing new. So I don't think this thread is going to be allowed. You just don't understand why we need evidence to support such an extraordinary claim, and for some reason you can't grasp why your videos are worthless.

You were offered several ways to set up experiments that would tell you something meaningful in your last thread, so I'm not buying the "simple-minded" bs. You choose not to be more scientific with this, and I think your "academy" is going to ignore you and your claims because of it. If you went to them with results of experiments, you'd be taken more seriously. As it is, you're asking busy scientists to seriously consider that your hands or your breath aren't affecting your stupid wheel that's designed to take advantage of both.

This sounds exactly like your last thread on this. No attempt to eliminate outside causes, no attempt at setting up experiments that more accurately measure, no attempt to be more rigorous at all. If you aren't going to do anything differently, if you aren't going to apply some science to your assertions, why are you opening this thread (again)?

I don't believe in Thor, or Santa Claus, or unicorns, despite all the huge amounts of writings concerning them. I also don't collect stamps, but I don't think it's a secular belief that keeps me from doing so. I just don't see the value, and I'm not at all interested. Same thing for god(s). I'm not against them, I just don't see any evidence to support their existence. It's a lack of belief, so how can it be a secular belief?

This is all very good, accepting people for themselves and trying not to judge. But the real question here is if atheists are using their belief system (or faith) with regard to their perspectives on religion. I say it's not a belief if you DON'T believe in it. Atheism is about a lack of belief in god(s), so it's not a religion or a religious belief. Atheism is NOT a faith-based belief.

! Moderator Note It's against our rules to use words that disparage any group of people. There are retarded people in the world, and we'd prefer they don't have to fight more battles because of discrimination. Please don't call anyone a "retard" here.