Phi for All

Body temperature is controlled within certain parameters. Regulating core temperatures between 98F-100F is not the same as plunging internal temperatures below ambient. Known to? Because I can't find a decent paper supporting this statement, so I'm glad you'll be able to link us to one.

So, none, other than magic. And that's all we should require of our sources, that they declare themselves to be true? If it was true, it would seem like a big enough story to be included in some medical journals or even a newspaper of the times. The fact that the only mention is in a guide to public speaking tells us this is unlikely to be a real story. And there is no physiological mechanism for a person to freeze themselves to death, with or without thoughts.

Why is this version any more credible than the other versions Snopes mentions? Honestly, if nobody can find where this man worked for the railroad, and corroborate what really happened, then isn't it more likely the whole thing was made up? The source of the quote is from a book on public speaking, offering up anecdotes to spice up any speech. What mechanism would the brain use to make the body freeze?

Wow, Strange has some powers I was unaware of. He earned YOU over -10 rep points?! I'm sure he'll step up and take responsibility soon. I know integrity is important to him. We do keep an eye out for those who abuse the system. Members also correct rep points given that they don't agree with (I try to correct negative rep on Opening Posts in principle). Commander, I think you make yourself a target with your blustering. You demand people do things, you make assertions instead of ask questions, and you often post replies that look like you didn't really listen to what others have written. This is frustrating, and can lead to some negative points.

You can parade your Dunning-Kruger mental misfires around all you want, and the folks here are going to try to patiently explain where you have gone wrong, but you can't keep insulting people personally and stay here. We attack ideas here, not people. And we attack ideas to make them better, stronger, more trustworthy. I don't think you understand that any better than you do science.

If you think about it, we work really hard to afford the foods we eat, the activities we participate in, the access to medical care we have, and other things we do for ourselves and our bodies. The key seems to be that a lot of the money we spend is to correct our bad choices. I work a certain amount of time to afford some of my food indulgences, and I work more so I can afford a gym membership to correct my indulgence. When I eat more sensibly, a normal amount of exercise is adequate and I don't need the gym. I've been looking at "convenience" like this a lot lately. We pay so much for things to be convenient and save us more time for leisure activities we're too tired to participate in because we've been working so hard to afford them.

Brad Watson_Miami FL has been suspended for 63,510 days for repeated hijacking, personal attacks, and sending threatening PMs. We hope he's learned his lesson when he eventually comes back to us.

The higher the color temperature, the cooler the light is considered. I think it's really because the lower temperatures are more reddish-white, the higher ones more bluish-white, and we associate heat and cold with those colors. In any case, it shows how dishonest these alien hunters are willing to be.

You just said the secret word....

I'd say so. Perhaps with different lighting color temperatures. #2 looks cooler, around 5000-6000K, while #4 is warmer, 2700-3000K.

The double whammy! Like on a snowy winter day when you're huddled up inside doing very little, nothing sounds better than a carbocheesemeat plate that could fuel a couple of gravediggers for a day. On days like that, I cut up some raw veg and eat that when I feel hungry rather than make full meals. My belly fat went down significantly when I stopped "sharking" to find a parking space. This is something I learned back in college at the downtown campus where close parking was scarce. You follow someone who's walking to their car so you can take their space when they leave. I always hummed the Jaws theme song while I did it, that's why I called it "sharking". That became any appreciable amount of time spent trying to find a close-in space to park. I didn't question the need, it just seemed intuitive that the closer spaces were better. I caught myself sharking one day as I was also thinking that I really wanted to go for a long walk later. It was so funny that I parked in the farthest space away from the store I could find, and walked. It took less time to walk than to wait for a good space with a shorter walk, and I got needed exercise. I started to look at other activities that way, and adjusted whenever I found more absurdity (like hiring someone to rake my leaves so I have time to go to the gym).

! Moderator Note The only truth I see is that you have no idea why it's wrong to post untried, untested speculation in a section that students trust to be mainstream science. You also see nothing wrong with trying to make every discussion about your idea. You exhibit an extremely selfish and self-promoting behavior that is anathema to productive, meaningful science discussion. It's not going to be tolerated any longer. Please stop.

! Moderator Note And since nobody can discuss this with you because they'd have to read 74 pages similar to the above, I'm going to close this. Please read our rules. You can't preach here, nobody wants to listen to it. We're a discussion forum, and it's obvious you're only here to soapbox. Please don't open any more threads like this where you cite yourself to drive traffic to your website.

Fix up the spare room, I'm on my way to the airport right now. I know a restaurant has some fixed costs that they have to charge customers just to sit down at a table, but there should be a way to scale the meal size down proportionately with the costs, to a certain extent. We've come to associate huge portions with good value, and we've disassociated good nutrition with the process of eating out. To be honest, it's probably not the restaurants that are the problem with obesity in the US, it's the snacking. The snack aisles in the grocery stores have grown to the point where they need separate aisles for sweet and savory. Cookies/candy here, chips/pretzels/crackers over there. One thing I've noticed in traveling is that Europeans have more traditions involving food. I used to think they were more obsessed by it because of this, but now I realize that tradition is really good for portion control. The British single soft-boiled egg and toast points, the French cafe latte for breakfast (the only meal where milk is allowed in coffee), the German insistence on seasonal foods only when they're in season (do they still do this? I remember being laughed at in a Frankfurt supermarket when asking for cashews in late August).

I always laugh at that too. The titles are built into the reputation system software. I'm about 94% sure that the Admins left them on the default just to be funny. My favorite was when I was a "Beacon of Hope". I wanted it changed to "Bacon of Hope", because well, bacon. The Admins may not be able to change those titles. I know the Mods can't. If we could, I'd change it from "Glorious Leader" to "Fearless Leader". Big fan of Jay Ward & Bill Scott. Wow, you sent chills down my spine! I pictured you on a mountaintop with a storm brooding in the background. There was lighting, and thunder, and lots of stringed instruments playing furiously.

The inertia switches that trigger the fuel cut off need a pretty robust jolt. A bump isn't going to do anything unless she was going pretty fast. I've heard those switches also pop open the door locks. It's not a bad system, and I'm sure there would be times it could save your life, and that's certainly worth the occasional five minute reset. That said, I've had experience with a car that lost it's power for the power steering and power brakes, and it sucks. I don't like the idea of hitting another car/getting hit and then suddenly having limited maneuverability. Often in that situation, you need as much help as you can bringing the vehicle back under control. I don't understand this one. It just sounds like the unlock button doesn't work. Or are you saying that the car won't recognize the lock being un-engaged from the inside unless you're seated? I have a car where the locks engage the first time you turn a corner or accelerate quickly. It's only a problem if I'm picking someone up. I expect them to hop in easily because I didn't lock the car... I don't get this one either. Are you saying that the lights come on automatically when you leave the store, but shut off somehow along the way? That's just not right... I agree. We can't let the "nifty" factor override a thorough assessment of the issue. I can't help but think that if we need to automate automobiles, we should have just invested in more light rail or maglev trains. You take away the driving experience when you take away the control. Now I'm left with only the convenience of being able to hop in my individual car. At some point I'm going to realize I'm riding in a one-person train being driven by something else.

I think we should try some basic physics education for car owners before we move to automating cars. I find that the people trying to work a traffic jam to their best advantage are the ones causing most of it. If people could chill out and allow zipper merging to avoid everyone hitting their brakes, much of the heavy traffic could move more efficiently. It's the guys who race to be the first in line at the next stop light that cause everyone to have to stop. Automation might take care of that, but I'd like to see an education program first. Much less expensive, and I believe it's worked in some European countries.

... just about anything. Doesn't make it meaningful, or interesting. You're making lots of assertions that you either can't or aren't backing up, and you're making up your own terminology as you go. Considering that you're calling this philosophy, and there's little science to discuss, this amounts to soapboxing. Nothing we can say will have any meaningful impact, and nothing you're saying so far makes much sense in terms of science. You really should get a blog. This isn't discussion.

If you're talking about an extra set of limbs, in addition to our set of arms and legs, then no. There would be no place for the necessary muscles, and there are no places for the limbs to grow from. We're vertebrates, and no vertebrate has more than four limbs (tails don't count). Having our arms evolve into wings might be possible, but it would require extraordinary pressures over a very long time, and it would cost us much of what we value now. Our hands are a big part of our present development. Our hands made it possible to fly without wings. You should study to become a pilot, that's the most feasible way for humans to fly.

In Speculations, many people want to jump ahead of their own knowledge, because they see something in the distance that makes some sort of intuitive sense. But without the right knowledge, trying to make those leaps leaves you on shaky ground. That's why we make sure each step is sound before making the next. It's all about being able to trust your conclusions. Imagine you arrive in Paris, and let's assume you've never been there before, and don't speak French. You want to visit the Eiffel Tower and you can plainly see it in the distance. You aim your car in that direction and start driving. Bur you're not a Parisian, you don't know the language or the thousand little details that can help you navigate most efficiently to your goal, so you keep getting blocked because you insist that your way will get you there. You may not have studied the map, but you have some natives who're willing to share their time and knowledge with you. I think you have to ask yourself, do you want to navigate on your own, or do you want to visit the Eiffel Tower?

Since this is in a mainstream forum, I'd like to see some hard evidence instead of "I read somewhere once...". And can we define what the OP is asking for? Obviously, much testing is done in secret by both public and private entities. Much of this is genetic testing, but so what? Aren't we really just talking about secret genetic testing we'd all be outraged to find out about? And without some hard evidence, isn't this just speculating on conspiracies?

! Moderator Note The topic is not reputation, or Fukushima, it's about phytoplankton in the Pacific Ocean.

I'd be very interested in seeing a diet designed without the economy in mind, for modern human lifestyles. Few people have work that simulates the kind of activity we were used to 20,000 years ago. Most have moderate to low activity most days. If we weren't interested in keeping every farmer, foodstuff manufacturer, and restaurant prosperous and economically viable, what would be the best things for us to eat? If we weren't used to three meals a day of certain proportions, how many meals of what size would we eat? I had the idea years ago to open a restaurant that served sane portions instead of three times more than you need for a meal. The idea would be to trade off lower average ticket size for higher frequency of visits. I thought people would eat almost daily at a place that gave you about as much food as you'd fix at home, at half the price of other restaurants. It's an idea that sounds great, but I've never seen anything like it. Has it been tried and died?

! Moderator Note OK, it looks like the OP's question was answered early. Is there any further on-topic discussion? Post now, since it looks like it's close to closing time.

Why do you insist it was used against you, personally? I've re-read that particular entry, and it's very clear it's being used to describe a specific set of ideas you posted. You are not your ideas. I don't know in what context you view the word, but it was clear that the meaning here was "rubbish". Does it seem more likely that "rubbish" describes those ideas, or that it describes you personally? It's not a definition one ascribes to people very often. But really, you should be addressing the excellent questions others have posed for you. And provide some evidence for the parts of your idea you've asserted most.