Phi for All

You miss my point. You only quoted part of it. It doesn't matter if you think of these as crimes or felonies (sharing prescription drugs IS a felony, and in some states so is illegal gambling with your buddies). It matters what the person being screened thinks of as crime. My real point is that you're going to run out of specific questions for the candidate, and you're eventually going to ask him if he's told you about all the crimes he's committed. He may not remember anything more specific, but because of the nature of the question, he may think there might be more, indicating a falsehood, and thus you think you catch him lying about deeds he can't tell us about, which looks even more suspicious. I think the real problem we have in this context is far too much vagueness about a specific political campaign. If politicians in the US were held to specifics about their policies and the bills they plan to implement or support, we wouldn't need to trust them, we could kick them out or praise them on merit. I don't think the lie detector idea solves enough problems, and creates a few more.

Why are it's mysterious origins keeping you from learning more about it? "We fail to look beyond" is a specious, immature assumption based on not knowing what you're talking about (chemistry, physics, math). Science isn't interested so much in why things are, or how they came to be. Science predicts the ways various phenomena are going to behave based on observation of reality, and forms explanations based on a preponderance of evidence that will support a theory. Saying "We've gotten so wooed" is a sound byte caricature of expectations you've browsed in popsci articles and blogs, where few people exercise the kind of rigor we're used to here.

! Moderator Note I've moved this out of Speculations, since the OP is interested more in mainstream answers. If this changes, we can move it back, but as long as we're not charging off into the weeds, I think we'll get more informative answers and fewer hijacks of the original ideas here in Anatomy, Physiology, and Neuroscience.

! Moderator Note Please remember this is a science discussion forum. What you're suggesting here is rejecting scientific methods of validating data before it's analyzed for useful information, something that's worked extremely well for us since we started using it, rejecting all that in favor of just accepting what YOU say as Truth. No. If you're banned from here, it won't be because of your ideas. Our rules require you to support your assertions with evidence (you don't have to "prove" anything). If you can't do that, and continue to require that we just "believe" you rather than trust your assertions, your thread will get locked since there won't really be any science involved. Enough threads locked the same way and you will get banned. But it won't be because we couldn't handle your brilliance, it will be because of a lack of scientific support for what you adamantly claim. Just sayin'.

I'm afraid you're right, and that really does mean anything rational from us is wasted effort on Eldad. He doesn't have a mechanism for accepting the null hypothesis, and in fact has set up a situation where he never has to accept results that don't match up with his 100% concrete belief that he's doing this with his mind. There's no point to this, except to point out to others how flawed reasoning kills knowledge if it's not properly validated.

The problem with crime in this instance is that we break the law so regularly in little things, like speed limits or turning across double yellow lines, or a friendly game of poker for money with your buddies, or jaywalking, or sharing your prescription Tylenol with your spouse. You might end up with details that satisfied the populace that these weren't crimes that would keep one from being President, but you might also end up asking "Is that all the crimes you've committed?" What do you do when they answer yes, there are no more, and it comes up a lie? Because it sure could, seeing as how we all know there are plenty of things we justify as not-crimes when they really are. And then you have someone saying they are innocent but the machine says lie. Instant political death.

OK, stick with this and forget the metaphysical existence energy angle. Whatever it is or wherever it comes from, you believe it moves the psiwheel like you pushed it with a mental finger, rather than causing an air current event through motion or convection, or vibrations from the environment. Now testing with the foam chips and feathers takes on new meaning. Pushing the psiwheel with your mental finger won't affect the foam and feathers. If you move the wheel alone (after it's settled as much as possible) without moving the chips and feathers, it's strong support that you're right about it being a "mental finger force". BUT, if all the bits in the experiment area move when you try just to move the psiwheel, it's a strong indicator that an air current event is taking place, or possibly vibrations affecting the whole.

It is a "biggest problem" that conservative fear is also fear that they actually ARE the problem. They decry intellectualism but they fear doing stupid things, it's obvious in the way they spin everything down to "it's ALL our faults, equally". Denial that humans cause climate change, or that conservatism is being manipulated pushes some over the edge. If I didn't have facts about reality on my side, I too would be terrified my ideology a) was NOT being represented as portrayed by the pols I helped elect, b) has NOT been updated to include fact-checks on things I thought I knew but are being called into question, and c) developed with good intentions BUT, BUTBUTBUT, because of a) and b), has been warped into a roadblock to human endeavor in this country, perverting my support of it, and poisoning my thinking with its (I now realize) outdated biases. Clinton also did more to hand over our national means of staying informed than Reagan did. Reagan knew that if the corporations could own more than just media outlets, they could control what the public knows about their businesses. He used the FCC to try to dismantle existing regulations about cross-ownership in the last days of his administration, only to be blocked by Ted Kennedy. But Clinton handed the whole ball of wax over. Now we have Burlington Coat Factory and Dominoes and Disney in charge of the way our federally chartered and licensed informative news programming is relayed. Journalism dies when profit and spin is the motive. I don't know how anyone who ever watched Walter Cronkite deliver the news could compare the absolute crap we have now to "informing the People of America". Now 6 companies control 90% of what we see, read, and hear when we want to inform ourselves. They have no regulations telling them they have to get it right. Their focus is NOT on informing you, it's on keeping you listening/reading/watching so they can use your number to make a profit. Nothing wrong with profit, except when it comes before something you really, really need. Like accurate data and matter of fact information that doesn't try to push you into thinking a certain way. Giving you that information should be the priority, and it never will be if they make more money by feeding you bs that makes you listen/read/watch longer.

Did we ever establish a medium for TK? Does the TK move air currents the psiwheel is designed to take full advantage of? Or does the TK actually apply force directly to the object itself, as if you might move it with a mental finger or hand? Or do you think the TK makes things hotter so convection comes into play to move the sensitive psiwheel? Or something else? Answer this, and we can apply some meaningful thought to the question of psiwheel vs other sensitive measuring devices.

! Moderator Note You've been warned about this, but did it again. We need to see a synopsis of what you're talking about, because nobody wants to invest even a few minutes on some untested, unknown YouTube nonsense. Give us a good reason to make the investment by posting some discussion points. It would be helpful if you could somehow incorporate the fact that science doesn't "prove" anything. Rather it gathers evidence to either support or refute.

I get more disgusted by your ignorant approach to this discussion every day. It's like you're a child who purposely misunderstands what he's been told so he can ignore it, and go do as he pleases. Eisenhower taxed the wealthiest Americans quite a lot, and they were still the wealthiest Americans afterward. This statement of yours is childish and petulant. I'm no longer posting this for you, tar, because I know it won't sink in. You'll just figure out how to ignore everything you don't want to acknowledge about your alleged critical thinking. Maybe someone like you will see it and figure it out, though.

As a paper airplane enthusiast, I can attest to a lack of precision when folding paper. Psi wheels are probably like snowflakes.

From personal experience, lie detectors are only as good as the questions asked while hooked up to it. If you ask ANY cashier if they've ever "taken" money from a cash register that didn't belong to them, and they answer NO, it will come up as a lie. Because the cashier believes you mean "have you ever stolen money from a cash register", but the question says "taken". Cashiers take money from the register that doesn't belong to them all the time, it's their job. They take money out for change, deposits, tips, etc. Similarly, if you're shown a card that's half red and half blue, and you tell the observer that the card is blue, it comes up a lie. The more I think about the OPs concept, the more I think it's focusing on anonymity rather than on reducing the importance of appearance. Anonymity seems to cause unnecessary problems and obstacles, and carries some hidden traps as well. Could a candidate speak well (behind a voice synthesizer, so I don't know gender?), say the things I want my candidate to say, but then turn out to be someone I've despised for past actions and would never have voted for him if I knew? And now the bastard is in office and I helped!

The title is misleading as well. Using the broad term Christian when the focus is on creationist views is a blanket condemnation. Using the word "prove" in a vague way that makes it seem like a proof about Christianity rather than refuting specific assertions. There are plenty of reasons why one might question religion. There's no need to use vivid tactics to do it, especially when the tactics mislead rather than illuminate.

I think it's a non-starter. Blanking a person's face in any way when you're showing the rest of them is going to set up some automatic cultural defenses in many viewers. While it would be a benefit to increase the signal to noise ratio by focusing on substance rather than appearance, I'd say we'd be better off listening only, and forget trying to show any part of the candidate. Radio debates would be awesome, actually. Watching televised debate coverage in the US is a lot like trying to focus on issues while playing slots in Vegas. Lots of small distractions for those who can't follow the two-and-three-syllable intellectualism going on. In kisai's scenario, Trump IS the Goat. Coo coo ca choo.

"I fail to see how reading and posting [about mainstream science] on a [trusted] forum is much different than reading a[n unknown] pdf document on a website [you've never been to before] as far as wasting your time [keeping you from your job as a physics professor], but I'll humor you [especially because it's part of the rules the members like to have enforced]." [Perspective mine].

There are plenty of examples of voting systems that will more accurately represent the People, and won't end up creating a two-party, semi-even split like we have now. There's no way a country our size can be fairly represented by so few sizable parties.

Doing away with the EC and single-winner plurality voting would accomplish more, and there wouldn't be any need for secrecy. I think transparency is going to be the key moving forward. Change to a voting system with multiple winners and proportionalized representation is going to remove a lot of the visual factors in favor of how well the representative woks to achieve an efficient, effective process within their branch.

This rules out any type of physical campaigning, since face-to-face meetings are hampered when the person is wearing a mask. There's something very off about trusting someone's words when they hide their face. This cuts off a LOT of participation from the People who are looking for someone to represent their vote in government. It's an interesting idea, but I think we'd be better served if our pols (in the US at least) were required to be more precise about the ways they intend to represent us. Making promises they later break just to get elected is more difficult when they've presented detailed plans on how they intend to serve the People. For this, we need to see them. We need to know their hearts, if possible. We need to know they have our backs when it comes to representation.

There's always some substance in your thread starters, otherwise they wouldn't last a page. What gets frustrating is your less than rigorous methodology for developing your ideas. You make far too many assumptions that aren't supported, which can lead you to some confusing conclusions. Couple that with misusing terminology and we end up with pages and pages of people asking you to explain your idea better. What you're doing isn't working towards a productive discussion system. Science fora thrive on substance, evidence, rigor, and clarity. Calls for clarity are completely normal from people you're talking to, and they're entitled to as many as they need. As the producer of the idea, it's incumbent upon YOU to make sure what you're claiming, what you want to talk about, the reason you started the thread in the first place, is as precise and understandable as you can make it. If you get a lot of people asking you what you're talking about, perhaps you need to put some more time into your opening posts, to ensure a more productive talk. If the above quoted is an apology, then I accept it. Just remember, this isn't about you, it's about a dodgy process you're using. EVERYONE wants to help you get it fixed, since nobody really likes having to ask "What are you talking about?"

Oxalic acid, apparently. Removes rust, too.

I'm not sure what you mean. If you can arrange with your employer that you'll be taken back after leave, you're usually able to take as much unpaid leave as your employer will agree to. I also disagree with your assumption that many couples could afford to do without any income streams for 3 months. Especially right after paying for a new baby to come into the world. And that video is very lean on facts and figures. Prager University isn't exactly an intellectual powerhouse. The founder was asked to leave his service with the US Holocaust Memorial Museum by the Mayor of NYC due to his controversial views. That woman uses some very fancy spin to do exactly what she accuses feminists of doing. That kind of video puts the pro in propaganda.

Then no, we can't delete them. All ur posts r belong to us.

Because it's unpaid leave. How many couples could afford to have both earners on unpaid leave? Link? I've not heard this.

This is your only post when I search your content. I can hide this whole thread and you'll be good to go.