Phi for All

Why would making that mistake be easy? AFAIK, overtone has NEVER said we need to get rid of capitalism. Nobody has, so why does it keep being brought up? Maybe because it's an easy strawman to attack? Much easier than addressing the real issue, which is when is capitalism more effective, and when is using public funding better? Isn't this really akin to asking "Why do you hate our troops?" when someone complains about a war? When we say there are problems that need to be addressed in corporate dealings with our government, aren't you just whining "Why do you hate capitalism?"

Or cavort with seals! You otter try it!

If you wrap them in cheap jute twine, you get some shock resistance, and you can make yourself a carrying strap, too!

For $23, I'll risk dehydration (and bullets) until I get home.

It's clear that any objections to ANY of her specific points are based solely on kneejerk, misconceived concepts that ignore any specifics. When those specific initiatives are posed individually, without being attached to Ms Clinton, the overwhelming majority of Americans and gun owners agree to those specific initiatives. Why is it wrong to keep guns out of the hands of the crazies if it comes from Hillary Clinton? The Republican Party is known for rejecting intelligent ideas if they come from a Democrat, and there is NO similar behavior from the Dems. More evidence the GOP is NOT serving it's constituents with reasoned leadership, and is thus an enormous problem for America.

This is a science discussion. I had hoped you were serious about your question. Why not give some clarity to those who are engaging in it with you? There's no judgement going on, so I'm not sure why your attitude suggests we're out of line asking for some clarity.

I agree completely. Better to wait until you can spend a little more, and get something that will be a pleasure rather than a pain.

! Moderator Note We're not entirely pleased by your reactions, either. This is a science discussion forum, and the members have been trying to correct mistakes on your part, and on the part of Ryan. They've given you answers, and you've acknowledged some of them, but now you're claiming you still expect answers despite so many errors that haven't been corrected. This is what happens in Speculations. The members are going to help you shore up misunderstandings and mistakes first, and when all is sound foundationally, they can address the idea more fully, with more trust. I would suggest that we close this thread down, so you can reread it before starting your new topic. We normally don't encourage talking about these modnotes, but please let me know if you agree or disagree.

Please tell us what the problem is in terms of chemistry. Give us a synopsis of the many articles you read. Why are the bottles part of a lawsuit? What chemically makes them unhealthy or harmful? Please tell us, without linking to a commercial site, why you think there might be a chemical problem with these bottles.

What are you going to be doing with the laptop? That's always one of my main considerations. Is it going to be an all-around machine, or primarily a web-surfer, or did you want it for games?

It's a mature outlook for a nation, and one that's been stymied over the last 50 years or so. Many of us want to remove the obstacles that bar the way to such maturity. We've expressed a desire to see all People start their lives in health, and an acceptable minimum of education, prosperity, and opportunity. If some of our People wish to judge others, they should do so only after they remove their foot from the necks of those they judge. People should get all the education they can handle, and if we make that investment, People will return on it a hundredfold. We know this from history. We have evidence to support this stance. We think there are smart times to use public monies, particularly to remove the profit angle that can defeat good programs. We think it's a grown-up, intelligent way to deal with developing our democratic republic, by starting with the fairest, smartest foundations for success. We think too much power has been put in the hands of business, power that has corrupted their intent and has allowed them to govern themselves with disregard for the country that charters them. We think it's time to reign them in, and get back to a ratio of productivity to wages that respects workers and owners alike, and brings those monies back into a thriving economy. We believe we need to restore the power of our government to keep honesty as part of our national character. We're heavily corrupt, and we need to stop the practice of allowing money to lobby for special favors that really don't help the People. No more sleazy politics. And we think the folks who don't want our country to grow up, those who fear an intellectual, empowered, People-driven America, are wrong. They stand in the way of maturity with their fear of the future, holding onto the door frame screaming inanities, lies, and misconceptions. They block everyone else's way, despite all the historical evidence that growing up is a good thing. It's so irrational, and causes so much damage, we often wonder if it's them, or those manipulating them, that are the biggest problem we have. It's like having someone sic a pack of dogs on you. The dogs are the ones you're cursing as you run, and they'll still be responsible for tearing you to shreds, but it's the handler that manipulated those dogs to attack, and he's the one that needs dealing with. But that's difficult when the dogs growl when you mention better conditions, or that they don't need a handler.

I wouldn't bother anymore. Tar's delusions are deeply set, and he holds these lies close like a security blanket, sucking his thumb in the fetal position. Fear can be your friend in ignorance. Fear encourages you to lie, and keep lying, double down on the lies, because the alternative is knowledge, and fear can't stand that. I've lost track of the number of bullshit references he's brought up in his feeble attempts to refute actual facts. Pretty soon he'll be back around to the Black Welfare Queen, and we can all turn in our Bigot Bingo cards.

The best proof won't be listened to, not by you, because it comes from other countries, and you conservatives don't trust them. They make it work, but you can't imagine we could. You think poorly of Americans, but I understand because you are a member of the Republican Party, and your critical skills are pathetic. Using public funds to make Medicare available to all would cost us less than what we pay now. It would do away with the idea of insurance for our health, put you and your doctors in charge of your health, and focus on keeping us healthy. But you don't listen to that (I can already hear you thinking of some meaningless, idiotic anecdote). You repeat the same ignorance over and over, ignoring everyone trying to show you facts. You can't seem to understand why lots of big businesses don't want you to mess with the fucked up way they've got things working in their favor, nor why it's important that we fix the fucked up part. I think you're a horrible spokesperson for our country, and I'm ashamed there are so many of you.

As they explain, they are continuing the challenge under a slightly different format. The fact that they prize critical thought has NOT changed. They will still be requiring ideas to have evidential support.

I was in Germany around 18 years ago when I saw a news report about someone who'd figured out how to make a plastic that could store its own solar power. I remember them talking about how it would revolutionize the toy industry, because you could make electric toys (like little cars) that would run as long as there was light, and there bodies would be the batteries. Since I never heard about that plastic again, I assumed either we lacked other ways of exploiting it fully, or Energizer bought the patent and it will never see the light of day again.

! Moderator Note Since Ryan's idea doesn't relate to mainstream Relativity, this thread also belongs in Speculations. And so far it's not meeting the standards that would keep it open more than these few pages. Let's step up the rigor!

You just keep holding on to that integrity-preserver. You can't sink as long as you pretend it works! And as tar has repeatedly demonstrated in this thread, the narrative can't be refuted because it becomes sacred to the conservatives. Once heard, and accepted through confirmation bias, facts bounce off the false narrative and it becomes Truth to the conservatives. You start listing facts to refute a trivially false point, and their eyes glaze over and they start chanting the narrative mantra. It makes them so gullible and goofy. And scary since this inanity is so widespread. And reinforced. And well-funded.

Or how we view your admittedly problematic explanations. You're not trustworthy. I mean this in the scientific sense, that your explanations have no evidence to support them, so they're all just hand-waving insistence that it's the truth. I think belief is three separate processes. Faith asks you to believe strongly with no support. Wishful thinking is just hoping something is true, even though you know it probably isn't. And the third is trust, believing in something because you've examined it rationally and have learned all you can about it, what others know about it, what reality says about it. I try to use trust as much as possible as my belief system. Trust requires evidence, and matching reality. It should be no wonder why we don't trust your "truth".

It shouldn't, since it's just a very poor, ignorant caricature of scientists some people have. When someone has no evidence to support their ideas, I guess it makes sense to discredit those who do, by any means possible. Unless you have a shred of intellectual honesty, that is.

In the US (where we have grown the business of law enforcement to its present 25% global market share), much of what a police officer asks you is trying to get you to somehow contradict yourself, to lie, or to appear nervous. This gives them probable cause, and empowers them greatly. I wonder if your friend didn't trigger some procedural response because he changed a previous statement by accident, or seemed more nervous than his basic grasp of the language would account for.

You're discussing atomic clocks with someone who builds atomic clocks for a living. For the US Naval Observatory. "Seem to be" is pretty understated.

Both this story and Eldad's underscore that this phenomenon starts with the behavior of the person whose delusions somehow allow them to dismiss that behavior. There is a violent reaction on one side, allegedly for no good reason, which doesn't make sense. We never hear the other side of the story, what that person did to initiate someone cursing them out, or a police officer beating them up, or bystanders objecting to being masturbated on. One way I can make sense of Eldad's story is to imagine he has a nervous habit of making a gesture with his hand that resembles masturbating. One of those things people do, like playing with a curl of hair, or tapping their finger on a desk. Only this one is inappropriate. He doesn't realize he's doing it, but people see him making that gesture and it's so out of place in public that they shout in response. I'm not saying this is the case, but it would explain the behavior. Or the whole thing could be imagined. Either are more likely than what Eldad described. We know there are those out there who are badly damaged, who rant and rave at strangers as if it's a rational thing to do. We also know there are those who function on a more mainstream level, like Marius, who are interesting and quirky, but still seem a bit disconnected with their role in reality. People adore patterns, and when someone behaves in a bizarre manner, it's tough not to come off as cruel in response. But is it cruel to at least start by suggesting that a diagnosis of paranoid delusions by a professional should indicate the person needs to avoid making decisions based solely on the bizarre things they think up?

There are things that were discovered before there was a practical application for them. Iirc, the steam engine was invented before there was a mechanical method to convert it's energy into work.

! Moderator Note NO! This is called hijacking, taking a thread and making it about your idea instead of the question asked originally, and it's against the rules you agreed to follow. If you can't discuss this without hijacking the thread, then don't participate. Speculative ideas go in Speculations. Formal warning. Don't do this anymore. And don't derail the thread further by responding to this modnote. Report it if you disagree.

This sounds like you've got a catch or loophole you think they haven't thought about, or that they haven't seen over the years, rather than actually trying to win the challenge on merit.