Phi for All

More hyphens. And prophet prestige. Very important that you remember who predicted the world ending-but-not. This all sounds like emotional guesswork. I see so many claims of Truth and Proof, and no evidence to support them. Why do people think science looks for those things? Science isn't a religion, it needs reliable, trustworthy foundations, based in reality, not guesswork pumped up by emotional certainty.

This is a good metric for just about anything. If it's something you use daily, spend a bit more and get something that will make you smile rather than frown. Whether it's shoes that feel great, or a bed that lets you sleep best, or a laptop that will become an umbilical to an organized, informed, hi-tech lifestyle, if you look at the things that will give you the most benefit, that's where you can always afford to spend a bit extra. And it helps to really analyze how you'll be using the laptop. Do you really need a lit keyboard? It would be really nice, but for the most part I have no trouble seeing specific keys. Do you move the machine around a lot? I'd go solid state drive if you do, but it's going to cost. If you really most often use the machine in just a few places, and never move it while it's on, you can get away with a regular hard drive and save money. Are you mostly hooked up to power when you use the laptop? Then you don't need a battery upgrade, but if you're forced to be without power on a regular basis (traveling maybe), then a more powerful battery is worth every cent.

That was a warp. This is a wash. The space-time wash. (cue music) Ah, the Inevitability of Our Demise argument. It's because we're so bad and stuff, right?

He hangs out by the Vogon laundromat.

I've always wanted to know this. What do these groups do afterwards, when their big prediction fails? Do they still meet? Do they fade into the woodwork? Do they move onto another date? Do they suddenly realize they put a lot of faith in nothing at all and change their ways? I'd love to see someone document this. "Life After the Mayan Calendar Says You're Dead". Because of the way confirmation bias works, I suspect they never really give up the belief, but instead figure out another way to make it work. "We didn't calculate for quantum effects! Eddies in the space-time continuum!"

That's what they do. And then they act injured when we remark on how eroded things have become because of their actions and policies. They piss all over good programs, and then claim the fault should be evenly spread, presumably because we all pee. And they think that makes sense.

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.