Phi for All

Sorry, we're going to need them out, too. We need the building for actual governing.

You won't need to. We'll all be in your front yard, American refugees. I still get the couch though, right?

http://www.cfr.org/campaign2016/bernie-sanders/on-islamic-state http://www.cfr.org/campaign2016/bernie-sanders/on-defense http://www.cfr.org/campaign2016/bernie-sanders/on-north-korea Sanders is convinced the US has to stop making these Leroy Jenkins military moves, and start working with coalitions of affected groups to form more effective solutions. We need to stay out of the boots-on-the-ground battles in the Middle East, yet remain supportive of our allies. This is where he differs a lot from the rest. He thinks we should be helping the people in affected regions form alliances that will help quell the chaos instead of inciting it. Everyone else is going to continue sending drones and scarfing down the terrorism bait, bankrupting us in the name of national security and corporate greed. We know that doesn't work, makes the rich richer, and escalates the fear felt by the general public. When you aren't thinking in terms of "waging business" on our enemies, growing their numbers to keep things profitable, I think you can actually look for solutions that don't involve killing and military intervention. If we can stop the source of funding for terrorism, remove their teeth, then their own societies can go back to dealing with the extremists among them.

We have to leave enough roads to make it to home and work, assuming we need separate space to land. I'm also assuming there is no way to transition between flying mode and driving mode instantly (like landing in the middle of ground traffic), so we would need some kind of isolated landing strips/areas. Since we'd still need roads for short trips in our cars, it seems that we don't gain the advantage of more space/less roads. Possibly the super highways could be removed, since most would probably want to fly for longer distances. It could be done, but at what cost and to what advantage? With all the flying cars, you'd need some kind of aerial highway, flight corridors where you could join other pilots heading in the same general direction. But that's not what people think deep down when they think of flying cars. Most people imagine being able to plot a straight line course to where they're going, to minimize the distance flown. But now imagine a whole city of flying cars, all wanting to fly straight to their destination. It would have to be computer controlled, and doesn't that just take all the fun out of flying your car around? I don't think the advantages of flying cars can be realized, since the necessities of safety and logistics tend not to favor them.

It's all disadvantage, imo. Sounds cool, but it would be a nightmare to add a third dimension to our auto traffic. There might be an advantage if we were to remove most of the roads, and leave just enough to get to our homes/businesses from the landing strips (do our cars hover? That would make a difference), but I don't think we'd do that. I think we'd keep the roads, AND add facilities for our flying processes. I can't even imagine what air traffic control would be like. It would eventually need to be automated for safety, so you really wouldn't be doing the flying yourself. For economy, we'd probably figure out ways to connect multiple vehicles all flying to the same destination. We have cars that can drive themselves now, and I can't help but think it's crazy that we don't just invest more in trains and light rail, rather than hook all our cars up like a train. I think it would be the same for flying vehicles. Better to invest in flying mass transit. An individual flying vehicle is an interesting idea. I think it falters when everybody has one.

Sanders is the only candidate not under investigation by the FBI. He has the only positive budget, where all the other candidates are deficit-spending their asses off (which is such hypocrisy from the Republicans, who claim it's always the Dems who jack up the debt). He's the only candidate who seems more interested in representing what the People really want, instead of furthering his own political career. He's the only candidate who hasn't taken money from the corporations that we all know are causing huge problems for our country. He's the only candidate who will try to stop the insanity of waging full-scale war against cheap little terrorists, and try to change the focus so our responses at least don't create more terrorists. I think that covers how I feel about the rest.

Threads are trashed for breaking the rules. Even if you have a thread (as you do) where you were unable to support your assertions, it's not trashed, it's locked so it doesn't waste any more time. IOW, it's not the ideas that merit moderation, it's the rule-breaking. But I know it makes you feel like Galileo to think it's your ideas that are too much for modern science. It's a common delusion.

The scales of justice, which I mentioned when I started this analogy, work the same way. But I understand why you don't want it to work. Thanks for playing anyway.

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?