Phi for All

It's sad that you don't have a good relationship with any of the teachers, but they have to give you those documents. You've made it much harder, and I think that's really what you're complaining about. You have a bad relationship with ALL your teachers?! You told yourself you didn't need to stay on your teachers good side, and it looks like you were wrong and can't admit it, so you're complaining that it's all their fault. So make the phone call and tell whichever teacher that answers that you need to get your transcripts, or go through the administrative office. There's a bureaucratic protocol you have to follow to get them, but they can't NOT give them to you. You can't really tell me you find a phone call to be so insurmountable a task. Colleges are going to expect you to be able to handle this kind of red tape. If you're serious about higher education, take responsibility,

I think you're focusing on the jobs lost and ignoring the jobs gained. I don't think it's so much about people losing jobs as people changing jobs. Also, most things that improve tend to bring dividends we don't always expect. The car I use when I'm racking up miles is a 17 year-old Honda, and probably cost a few mechanic jobs because it just hardly ever needed to go into the shop for repairs the whole time I've owned it. But I helped the economy by spending the money I saved on car repair on other things. It worked out just fine, and I'd like to think my money worked more efficiently for me. I bought products that employed others because I didn't have to fix my Honda. If we learn any lessons from the most recent recession, I hope those at the top will realize that people need to make a decent wage if you expect them to be able to buy your stuff. And automation should help productivity, which should be more closely tied to wages.

I thought metal strings stretched when new and often go out of tune until they've broken in. I have no idea what the chapstick could be doing to keep the strings from stretching, except for possibly reducing heat caused by friction. I wouldn't think it would be that noticeable. How much chapstick are we talking about here, is it a visible layer? StringJunky mentions the tone of the strings and it seems like anything that stays on the string would have an effect on the tone as it vibrates.

As I said before, if you come up with other words that some find less offensive than "ignorant", someone else will take offense at the new words. Wouldn't it be better to all be on the same page, using the same definitions, so we could all know that when the term "evolution" is used, we're not talking about how life on Earth began, or that if the term "ignorant" is used, it's referring to a lack of specific knowledge, not a lack of intelligence? ROFL! And even then, report the post and let the mods take offence. Didn't we, at some point in the not-so-distant past, discuss using "ignorant" instead of "stupid" because even saying "that's a stupid idea" implied it came from a stupid person?

So... the lip balm reduces friction on the strings and frets which might otherwise heat and stretch the strings, making them out of tune, is that right? Have you experimented with this before?

I think this is part of the problem. Science and logic are not compatible with "leaps". Leaps are unpredictable, and don't take advantage of the power of the methodology of slowly building evidence, making sure the foundations of your explanations are sound. Terminology is also part of the problem, you're putting words together in non-mainstream ways that suggest you aren't familiar with their proper usage. When you say, "...taking a subset of logic...", are you talking about a mathematical subset? Logic is a subset of mathematics, so you can probably see why it could be confusing. "Subjecting it" is a bit odd as well. Are you making up a process of taking objective assessments and "subjectifying" them?

To me, this is one of the best advantages next to small run prototyping. Holding inventory, in some industries, is like playing Russian Roulette. Especially with high-tech products where last year's hot product is this year's doorstop. If I could print up my products on demand, it would give me a huge advantage in the marketplace. No more warehousing!

I'm shocked by the Surly question. Is this Trek a time trial? If we avoid a Giant suspension, wheel be used as test tube experiments on recumbent DNA.

Then you should grab your gear and jam.

Exactly, that's His name on Thursdays.

Now I'm sorry I spoke at all.

Why do you put it on in the first place? Why only the last fret and the last string?

Part of the problem is that there are more than one common meaning for many words. Miriam-Webster's online dictionary (a popular if not a very good reference) has an entry for ignorant that reads: "resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence". Some read that as ignorant = stupid. I don't like limiting the words we can use if we can help it. What some consider innocuous, others may not. I'd prefer to define the words better, and make sure everyone understands the definitions we're using. How many pages of dreck have we wasted on explaining what "theory" and "logic" really mean?

Then shouldn't you know the concept of quantum mechanics? You're saying it's a belief like a religion, but it's clear you don't understand it or you wouldn't EVER say that. QM works, and we have lots of evidence to back that up. Science doesn't concern itself with "why". That's for philosophy. So you're criticizing science for not doing what it wasn't designed to do.

I don't think you should handlebar beverages any more today.

I don't see how I'm distorting anything. I invented a religion that has as much evidence as any other, and by your definition, it's completely logical just because it exists. And you have reduced the value of logic, since if everything is logical just because it exists, then we don't need logic as a concept, do we? You've removed the reasons for there to be a distinction between what is logical and what is illogical. You're trying to invent a one-sided coin.

I disagree strongly that science has only logic as a tool.

So... I just invented a new religion where, if you hold your breath until you die, you get to live forever inside the hole in a Cheerio our god has ingested. Unless your face turns either red or blue, in which case you get a Porsche made from grass clippings that runs on charm but only if nobody is looking. Logical because it exists, right? I can see where logic can be used to argue for the existence of religion, that it could be an inevitable outcome given our proclivity for imagination and our need to discover patterns, but I can't agree that because something exists it's automagically logical. IOW, religion and superstition may have a logical reason why they exist, but the specific religion or superstition need not be logical at all, and in fact rarely are in my experience. Calling everything logical just because it exists reduces the value of logic, imo.

A creator isn't needed, and no evidence exists that there was one. Do you have a reason to invent one? Whose god? All of them have an equal lack of evidence for their existence, so how do you choose which one you're wishing to be the creator of the universe? The gods we've heard of all have some sort of caveat against being directly observable. This means science has no methodology to apply to an explanation of those gods, so they're considered supernatural, outside the normal parameters of our reality. And since science only deals with natural phenomena, science isn't the right tool to use when discussing the existence of gods.

Some words carry a lot of baggage with them, and ignorance is certainly one of them. You, in particular, tend to apply it surgically but it is sometimes perceived as a generalized judgement. If I don't properly understand a topic and you call me out for ignorance rather than simply telling me which parts I've got wrong, there's more than a passing chance I'm going to assume you're saying I lack ALL knowledge of the topic rather than the specific bits you mean. Perhaps we need to start a sticky list of words with the definitions we typically employ here. That way we can point a member to a resource that explains why being ignorant about a certain topic doesn't mean you're ignorant overall. And again, it's not about fragile egos, it's about reducing the chances for misunderstanding that tend to clutter up a good conversation.

Ophiolite just said that evolution is not about speciation, he didn't say it doesn't happen. I'm not sure why you read any condescension into it. Many people misunderstand evolution and assume it has some kind of ultimate goal. We've had threads here about why we haven't grown wings yet if evolution is true.

"Read from people"? Can you link to this study?

Vexen, as Dekan mentions, you could also choose to ignore reputation and pretend people object to what you say instead of the way you say it. Then when you start getting bad reputation points, you can ignore what it really says about you and pretend you're being persecuted so you can keep doing it. Eventually you'll have so many negative points you can start pretending you did it that way on purpose.

Basically, the study is saying that women (and men, actually) find facial hair (or the lack of it) attractive only when it's uncommon. They like the guy with the beard or the clean-shaven face only when he's different than everyone else. In terms of evolution, it's a negative frequency-dependent selection.

As far as sexual selection goes, according to a recent study, beards and mustaches are only considered attractive when they're rare. If all the guys have beards, it's not as much a factor.