Phi for All

! Moderator Note No. Just... no.

! Moderator Note Please re-read the rules regarding civility, particularly section 2.1 which states Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited.We're a bit more relaxed in the Lounge, but this is a mainstream science section. Please treat it as such.

Rule of thumb is 1 foot deep for every 5 feet of light pole. Usually the concrete footing is 2 feet in diameter.

Was it fun riding the ski board when the magnet was working? 1.21 Jigawatts!

It doesn't have an engineered sexual aspect, except as a one-piece, clinging garment that emphasizes human physique. And the male version is the same basically as the female's, but lots of men in tights wear a dance belt (a fancy jock strap with cup). It's certainly not a skirt with "lollies" (thanks Acme!) that look like what most women wear under a skirt, that society normally says we're not supposed to see, unless the woman is being purposely lewd. Or is a cheerleader. As sexual aspects go, skirt + lollies is accepted, but a cheerleader top that let us glimpse the special "lolly" bra underneath doesn't seem to be allowed, and I would suggest that the same reasoning should apply to both. Why is flashing panties OK, but flashing bra is not? I know why parents allow it, it's because it's part of the uniform, it's what cheerleaders do, and after all, the real panties are under the lollies. To me, though, the skirt suggests I'm looking up it to see what's beneath when they flash me. It's unnecessary, and suggestive. Unless the suggestion is the whole point. As a man in his fifties, I think things like kilts and skirts and the hems of dresses were made for lifting and peeking under. As college cheerleader's skirts rose up over the years, and I'd be willing to bet there was a big controversy about what they were wearing under those skirts. Eventually, the lolly was accepted as part of the uniform, and high schools began having cheer squads also, and the uniform already had the blessing. It just seems a bit weird, when parents are trying to protect their kids so much these days, that they let these girls do a watered-down burlesque panty-flash in front of the whole community.

Possibly. My objections aren't the normal moral ones. They don't purposely design the cheerleading outfits to show off bras. Most outfits you see, even in college, are like the ones above, covering up most everything on top, including the bra. There's nothing obscene about any of them, most of the bottom parts show less than a bikini bottom would, but they seem to be purposely made to resemble panties peeking out under the skirt for those who watch attentively. I wonder if cheerleading started with the pros, moved to college, and then made it's way to high schools? Or did it start in university, then branch out? This seems like the real reason behind it all, so I wonder if high school cheerleading isn't a bit superfluous, unless it's a private school? OTOH, maybe we need more high school cheerleaders to help pass bond elections. Goooooooooo, EDUCATION!

But it's a leotard. Unless it's a leotard that is pretending to be a strapless evening gown, it's design is fulfilling its purpose. When you see a woman in a skirt that short off the field, she's usually very careful not to move in such a way that her underwear shows. She definitely doesn't do the splits and leg kicks. But the cheerleader is allowed, in her exuberance, to show off her panties to the whole crowd, including mom and dad and maybe a TV audience! Oh, absolutely. I guess I'm talking more about cheerleading than cheerleaders. I don't like to paint with such a wide brush regarding a whole group of folks. Cheerleading has become like the dancing after the hunt, highlighting skill and bravery, telling the story of mighty deeds. I just think the outfits are far more than blatantly sexual. It's far more than upskirt soft-core porn. It's dressing a teenage girl up in a skirt a 20-year old might wear to go clubbing, and asking her to dance in public in a way the 20-year old probably wouldn't. And now that I think about it, it's the skirt that bothers me. Take that off and the cheerleader is wearing a two-piece leotard. It's the skirt/panties combo for a person who's jumping around that bugs me.

The dresses are designed to look like short skirts, and then the cheerleaders do gymnastics in them, gymnastics designed to show off a matching pair of specially designed panties. It seems to be aimed at getting a peek at something you're normally not supposed to see. If it were about the gymnastics, they'd be in leotards like the gymnasts, wouldn't they? I don't think I've ever seen a woman's gymnastic outfit that emulates a short skirt and panties. I think it would seem crass since the gymnast is obviously going to be doing maneuvers women don't normally do in short skirts. I think gymnasts would want you to focus on their skill rather than peeking at their underwear. But it's the norm for cheerleading, even in middle schools with girls just into their teens. Cheerleaders may actually be athletes, but we dress them more like hookers.

You want help understanding what's going on with Shannon Green's story? You describe her as a extraordinary philosopher, but her style leaves me unimpressed. Rambling isn't as cool as it seems when you're doing it. Or perhaps you just found something in her musings that touched a chord with you. In that case, you should respond to her blog, rather than try to drum up a discussion here about such non-science topics. I don't see much philosophy to discuss here.

If I were in corporate management, and I wanted to continue my corporation's practices of minimum benefits for average workers and sub-par compensation (so the top guys like me get more), this is the kind of propaganda I would create. Puts them in their place, let's them know they should be grateful for even having a job, and keeps them from complaining because they're so afraid I will replace them with a machine. I would probably use the same marketing team that came up with that excellent campaign against AGW. Those guys are the best when it comes to fear, delay, and obfuscation.

! Moderator Note Mike, there isn't enough rigour in the argument, "I"m pretty sure an engineer will probably find a way, maybe." More science, please.

! Moderator Note MassComprehension, it's not our job to increase the hits on your YT account. We have a policy against this sort of promotion. We're a discussion site, and part of our rules state that discussions must allow people to participate without clicking links and watching videos. If you wish to discuss science, that's what we're here for.

! Moderator Note The author is trying to sell his book, including an audio version, on Amazon. Unless he's authorized you to do this version of his work, we can't leave it here. Perhaps you could summarize the authors points here, for discussion?

The biggest problem, imo, is that all this debris collides with itself too, breaking up bigger pieces into smaller, and sending all those off in new trajectories. Who's junk collided with what other junk? If two pieces of junk collide, which one is at fault? And if each of those go off to strike functioning satellites, who's fault is it then? It's pretty clear-cut when an identified piece of debris hits a working piece of equipment that's doing what it's supposed to, where it's supposed to be. Less so after a few collisions make ownership and liability questionable.

It was in response to your comment about us developing ant brains because of increased reliance on each other. Which part is difficult to understand? No, that wasn't my point at all, and seems unrelated. It's the direct stimulus of hunting every day that we don't get, something our early ancestors had no choice in. It's not about the killing of animals as a society, it's about the necessity of hunting to survive. We don't have that. Oh sure, survive in the jungle where he understands most everything about it. I put the goalpost in Times Square though. Your man knows nothing about it, and worse, he doesn't know how much he doesn't know. The second he tried to survive the way he did in the jungle, he's going to be breaking laws that might end his freedom, the same way you'd break jungle law by eating the wrong berries, or not recognizing the snake hanging from the vines. He wouldn't "get on OK", any more than you would get along in an environment that was completely alien to you. I think you have an inflated opinion about how adaptable early man was. He was good, but I think Manhattan would be overwhelming for someone who'd never seen metal before.

That's why I made the argument, to show you it didn't have to only be bigger brains = more intelligent. You're right, it's a good argument, usually the default one; we don't know for sure. You don't know?! Golly, every day, all the healthy men go out hunting and literally kill the meat everybody eats. Every single person is involved every day in the hunting, killing, and preparation of the food we all eat. We experience the exact same hormonal rush that early hunter/gatherers felt every day because death at the hands of our dinner is a very real possibility. Insert rolleyes here. It's more of a chemical thing, I would imagine. More protein requires less time looking for it. Seriously?! I don't think you thought this through. If I'm dropped in Times Square almost naked, I at least know that there is a very pressing need to get some clothes on fast before someone reports me or a cop sees me. I also know that New Yorkers are used to seeing some bizarre stuff, so that buys me some time. I know I might be able to bargain with tourists, give me your jacket and I'll give you a great story to tell back home about your trip to NYC. I know I'm much more likely to find a sympathetic clerk at one of the less mainstream shops than I am at corporate policy driven Forever 21. I can make up a funny story about why I'm naked, I can speak assuredly about my ability to pay for some clothes if I could just get some help now. I know the language, the territory, the rules, and the people. The tribesman doesn't. If he tries to get food the way he normally does, he's going to attract attention. Modern westerners report people shooting pets with bows and arrows. If he figures out that he needs to dress himself to better match those around him, he can't communicate through language, and if he steals the clothing he risks the police again. And he doesn't even know why that's a bad thing. Or are you arguing that the tribesman is the perfect human for all environments? Just like an ET that comes to Earth, I think the tribesman will fail to adapt in many places, just like you or I would fail if pushed too far outside our skill sets. If the idea is to fit in without a lot of disruption to the new ecosystem, it's difficult for any outsider to know all the details and nuances that govern it.

Remember that we can't really equate brain size with intelligence, and it doesn't necessarily follow that we're not as smart as when our brains were bigger. Since we no longer have to hunt and gather to survive, we don't need to rely as much on those functions of our brain. It's a different type of aggression. We aren't chasing something down and killing it on a daily basis as a species, nor are we raiding neighboring tribes every other month and defending ourselves from our neighbor's raids. I understood that quote to mean that the trend in smaller brain size seems to have been slowed or stopped altogether because of access to better nutrition in modern times. Aw, come on, you know it would work the same way if you put the tribesman in Times Square. If you expect the plane crash survivors to know the tribesman's territory and how to survive the law of the jungle, then the tribesman has to be able to find food and shelter while obeying the laws of Times Square. In fact, I'd venture to say that I would have better luck surviving three days in isolated Australia, than the tribesman would have staying out of jail in NYC. IOW, I don't think this is a fair test of intelligence.

It's the Predators you can't see that you have to watch out for.

I'd ask a relative.

I have that. I'd like to go c.

"Harness", use what it's already doing to benefit yourself/ourselves, make it do what you/we want it to do. What do you want light to do for you?

It's true, but it doesn't have the consequences you're thinking. As our societies have become larger, our reliance on social cooperation has reduced the need for the same kind of brain early man needed for his small groups. Less aggression has played a part as well. Here's an article that also suggests the trend has turned around in the last century or so due to better nutrition.

It breaks the heart to see thirty years wasted just because somebody wasn't interested in science in school. Whatever you've done to educate yourself in these subjects didn't work well, and you need to fix it. Nothing personal, you aren't alone, and it's actually good you're here, if you can take the criticism. The real tragedy would be to spend any more time on a failed process. Real information, gleaned from trustworthy data and compiled according to the most successful methodology humans have ever known, it's all available for you to learn. Science is far more exacting than you've been led to believe. Wolfram Alpha for math, TalkOrigins for evolution, these are good places to start, there are many others. You can't rely on the pop-sci garbage, or the politically/religiously motivated "controversies" to get your science information. Those sources have messed up definitions that science uses with precision, and inaccuracies tend to compound themselves when the subject is as big as the universe.

Which means your real culpability would be diluted if you were the one at fault. It's a position designed to be a win/win for you, but you shouldn't be allowed to have it that way when everyone else is involved as well. It's just like someone eternally claiming to be a skeptic. They think it means never having to be wrong, or responsible for things that go wrong. Everybody is equally guilty. I think fence-sitting these days is almost worse than strict conservative stances. At least with the authoritarian right, we get the occasional win on same-sex marriage, or removing a flag that symbolizes slavery, because of their idiocy. But fence-sitters get nothing done in a time when we need us some progress.

Take everything in context. conway wasted a lot of folks time with his rehash of elementary maths, and now, just when some of them thought he was getting somewhere, he opens this thread and rolls back downhill to square one. Frustrating. The software stamps from whatever zone you're in, so for me it was 05:11. But I agree, that would have been a great little touch.