Phi for All

Content not available. So not perpetual.

http://www.nbn.org.il/aliyahpedia/education-ulpan/special-education-resources-for-disabilities/organizations-that-provide-services-for-disabilities/ I am sorry to hear about your circumstances, and invite you to see if there are any of these organizations you may have missed in searching for help. It doesn't really matter to me that you're beating me up while I'm trying to help, I can take it. Some might call that caring.

Awesome. It's nice of the fans offering to pull the spear out.

Are you suggesting the existence of a Skipper of the Gaps? The Quarterbackdidit?!

It's almost impossible for me to be objective about it after reading your mistakes posed as assertions. Being wrong is part of living, but why the need to be adamantly wrong? You should check your facts before stating them as such. This is a science discussion site, and you have time to be rigorous before you post. So now it seems like you made up your assertions and asked me to bear them in mind as facts, in order to elicit an authoritative response to "Do you think I'm pretty?" OK, you could have just asked without the intellectual deception. You're probably very sexy-looking. But why did you give us such a heavily shopped photo that strips details and information from any meaningful assessment? The earlier deception is evidence that you might be removing such information in order to manipulate our conclusions. Fundamental mistakes bring out the nitpicker in me, but I don't feel it's misplaced in this instance.

That's a wonderful perspective, though. The Republicans have created this scenario where their own people are the ones who cause the fear that makes the whole party respond with more fear and stupid legislation. It's almost exactly like the real problem with auto traffic. It's the brake lights that take energy out of the system, and it's the people who are driving like jerks to avoid the traffic that are causing the traffic. It's a case of thinking you're doing something about the problem when you're really the biggest cause of it, something few people could ever admit. This makes more sense to me than the whole Republican party losing its collective mind. They're the ones trying to unclog the toilet by pushing the clog further in with a mop handle. It makes sense to them because they see themselves caring and doing something, forcing the clog down the drain because that's what you do with clogs. They never see that they're actually making the clog worse. But then, I'm always looking to apply reason to irrational situations. It makes me feel good but has a low success history. Like my analogies.

Is it possible you're overusing your moisturizing products? Skin that's already dry has a compromised barrier function, and the normal oils your skin has aren't working if you can see dryness. At that point it's not a great idea to keep cleaning the area and removing more oils. I've heard also that you could be teaching your skin cells that they don't need to take care of themselves, that you'll do it with moisturizers. I'm not sure this is plausible, since I don't know if skin cells have receptors that tell them when they're too dry. They have no direct blood supply at the outer layers, getting all their nutrients from the dermis. Next questions. How long has this been going on? What happens if you do nothing? Does the area grow if you don't moisturize, or get worse?

A huge chunk of heart sounds like you gave as much as you got. It's the compensation a dog like that deserves. Max and I will howl for you and Winston, Moon. We're sorry for the loss of your best friend. His story is a great one.

And I have a problem seeing "two opposing sides" (again, this is a pop media tactic of implying both "sides" have some equivalence, and thus a controversy where none should exist). What I see is a consilience of the evidence provided by multiple disciplines acknowledged by all but a tiny fraction of professionals who study this, and some people who claim to be skeptical about it but focus on denying the consilience of evidence rather than refuting it. What I also don't see is the courageous, out-of-the-box thinking, bright-minded skeptic who challenges accepted mainstream thought, and makes everyone see how right he is through the sheer force of his contradictory evidence. I keep seeing people who haven't studied this being manipulated by talking heads who haven't studied this, who are probably being paid to help stall any regulatory action, because profit is more important than a better environment to many.

I'm not sure what the Admins have that function set to. It used to be 6 hours before your editing switched off (we had folks who abused editing). If you post again rather than editing your first within that time, it automatically merges the two.

More kneejerk, emotional reactions that make no sense on review. Why do I get the sense this isn't about morals as much as it's about "some big old boy who calls himself a girl is going to beat my daughter in women's soccer" (or worse, a girl will beat my boy!)? It's probably really about repealing that law, and forcing kids to use a bathroom they don't identify with, but since it's about sports they're going to get support they shouldn't have. High school sports parents in the US are maniacs anyway, and they see unfairness everywhere. It could also be that Mr Hunt would really like to start "proving himself" to anyone who will watch. When I think about transgender people and bathrooms, there's nothing "dirty" or sexual about it (maybe I'm using the wrong bathrooms). When I hear Rep Hunt's proposal, all I hear is peeking at children's genitals for no reason, and it's all about the dirty. Shame is what he should feel, instead of trying to foist it on others.

And I feel what you're doing to make both arguments equal isn't worth any supposed benefits you get from your distinction. You say this bias affects scientific work "like anything else", but that's not true. "Anything else" doesn't have the same rigorous methodology available to resist exactly such subjective assessment. Bias may be available to all in equal measure, but in science we don't treat bias the way "anything else" does. We have taken measures to combat it that are extraordinary. This is a pop-culture, media-driven argument, one that tries to make all sides of an argument equal to promote an alleged controversy, when they clearly are NOT.

They have to wriggle their way into the pouches right after birth, no help from mom iirc.

This sounds like magic. A "sufficient" amount allows you to assume adequate development of a brain in a few days. Nice trick. Are you suggesting the only limitation to an organism's development is nutrients? This sounds like I could fill a water balloon with a fire hose efficiently, but I'm sure I couldn't. Or rather that I could increase the growth of bamboo to a meter per hour just by using "sufficient amounts" of nutrients.

I'd use the slogan, "If you had a gun, you'd never have to think about safety again", and hope your hearing is as selective as many Americans.

The Geckomancer has been banned. We were just going to suspend for his "I'm never wrong" style of soapboxing, but then he went foul and started abusing the PM system. We hope he finds whatever he might be looking for, and people that understand the way he explains it.

"Dear Dad, I'm having some major stress about the way you criticize the way I spend MY money on MY education. I really appreciate all you and mom have done for me. You've taught me to make good decisions, complicated decisions, and now I need you to trust me and give me some verbal support as well. Neither one of us needs the stress."

This is exactly the way it is in the US, only the numbers and titles change state to state. I'm not entirely sure, but there might also be some overarching federal criteria as well, so a municipality might get extra funding for certain programs if they qualify by structuring the way they're incorporated to match federal grant guidelines. It had nothing to do with religious connections, afaik, probably because we're supposed to separate church from state.

This is his last chance to help you, after raising you to this point, and his biggest single investment in you to date, one which he's hoping to reap abundant returns on (seeing you be successful in ways he might not have been). To make this all about him stressing YOU out seems pretty selfish. I've usually found that when people feel this way about each other, it's a misunderstanding. You think it's about money (he wants to know how much you spent). He thinks it's about responsibility (since you're here to get a degree with the best grades possible, how can you say you've been responsible when you get a bad grade AND you spend so much time with your girlfriend?). You think you should be able to do it all, because socialization is important too. Your dad knows that this is your shot at getting a huge leg up on life with a great education, and he sees the rest as distractions, obstacles, and impediments to all the work you've both done to get you here. There will be other women, other parties, other distractions after college, but now is the time for college. You should sit down with dad and discuss the new direction you want to take. He's going to resist because it's changing The Plan, but it's not the Plan itself that's important, it's having one in the first place. I think your dad just wants to know you know what's on the line. Dad's done what he needs to do to insure he's getting the most bang from his buck, and the only factor he can't control in this is the way you treat the gift he's giving you. It's not just about the money. It's about the money that bought the opportunity he hopes you aren't pissing away by not taking it seriously enough. If that's the impression you're giving him, try something else, because neither of you need the stress.

I believe it depends on how the municipality incorporated with their particular state. I don't think it's consistent at all, just a civil distinction that has meaning within a state. The state structure usually decides what the differences are. My state has no technical classification for a village, and very little distinguishes cities from towns.

! Moderator Note Mike, let's stick to the interactions between toys and children, as per the OP. Toy makers/designers and their processes as you've described seems to be a completely different topic.

Naivete is just a form of ignorance, a lack of experience or knowledge or both. Easily curable with proper information, and THAT is where your system is breaking down. I'm very glad you're here to get the real science, and not just the pop culture cures that rely on arguments from incredulity ("There MUST be a simple cure!"). I think this trend to simplify is typical for humans. We want patterns we understand, and often complex problems require equally complex solutions, so we shake our heads and insist there must be something simpler. It's much easier to think about making a slight change to your diet to cure cancer than it is to face a very burdensome but effective chemotherapy protocol. Even if this is true, why would you expect there to be a couple of simple things you could emulate from their lifestyle that would give you this benefit? Wouldn't you actually have to BE an Inuit and live where Inuits live to take advantage of any cultural or geographical benefits? This is a bit of a caricature of how it really works, a simplification that really doesn't inform or give a decent perspective. Again, the need to see all this simply, to reduce it to something you can understand and deal with, is very strong when you don't have the facts. You're relying on these caricatures of the system to teach you about it, and I don't think that's fair to yourself or those you're trying to help.

How long does it take for the lotion to wear off? Is it a matter of hours, or is it removed by daily routine?

There should be a name for the syndrome where we imagine extremely simple solutions exist for complex problems. It's very prevalent these days, and it probably ties into our love of convenience, but I think it's more than that. The average person loves stories where common sense triumphs over intellect. And I'm not sure why. But in the case of complex diseases, it's important to either dig in and learn about it to dispel your fears, or just trust that the medical professionals on your team have the most experience dealing successfully with them. By a HUGE margin. Alternative medicine can be very risky, and the folks who use it exclusively are a small percentage. Some complementary medicines, using the alternatives with conventional medicines, have at least been shown not to have any negative effects, and they're even approved by doctors in many cases. Alternatives like meditation, yoga, and massage are better than risky diets and hocus pocus, imo, and can be integrated seamlessly into many protocols.

There would definitely be problems in transition to a system like the UK's, and I think that's what stops most Americans from even imagining it's possible. I'd like to formally declare that being killed by a gun and being killed by a car being equally likely is unacceptable, and screw the transition problems. I think the far right wing is only using half it's brain in this instance. They can't get over the thought of not having a handgun, to see that it's OK because nobody else is supposed to have one either. They claim some people will still get guns, while ignoring the fact that gun deaths in the UK are as common as getting killed by agricultural machinery in the US. Can you imagine 4 million people dying in the US, and only ONE was from a gun? It's hard for me to understand why ignorant people think allowing the whole citizenry to have guns allows them to be safer. They think they can protect their families with their guns because in the few situations they fear the most, they think they could get to it in time, or not have it taken from them, or not shoot through their own walls to hit family and neighbors. The fear blinds them to obvious facts. If we kept our current law enforcement budgets and did away with handguns, response times would increase. I don't know about life in the sticks, but in major cities (at least Denver) the police do NOT recommend you get a gun. I know several members of the DPD, and none of them want more guns on the streets. If the guns weren't there, how much safer would everyone be?