Phi for All

! Moderator Note Innovate, thanks for bringing your question to us here at SFN! Please take some time and give a bit more detail about the invention you're describing. There are many solutions to this problem, but there is probably a "best" solution that can only be identified if we know a bit more about the general requirements for this "something". Is there anything more you can tell us without giving away too much about the invention?

If I had a nickel....

Well, you're assuming no one lets them in, so they HAVE to stop. That may reflect reality, but it's not the way it's supposed to work if drivers are cooperating. My State Patrol is telling us that the right thing to do, the most efficient use of the available road, is to move all the way to the end of the lane ("front of the bottleneck" is more poisoning the well, but arguably justified) and then merge. This assumes that people are letting others merge as well. It's the ones who don't who create any bottleneck, those and the people that merge too early and leave empty, unused road that could have relieved some of the congestion. I agree about the use of brakes. Red lights suck energy out of the system. I think a lot of people use them unnecessarily because they either treat driving like racing, or they treat it like a "pack" where they don't want to lose their position. It should be a fluid thing, but it's often not. I blame people who make it personal, instead of being part of a system. The system gives you lots of freedom but requires you to be consistent and work with everyone else out there to maintain the system's energy, keep things running smoothly and safely and get everyone where they need to be.

What does "worked" mean to the average guy in the context of moisturizing lotion? Whether your skin is dry or normal, a moisturizing lotion should pretty much moisturize the skin. How did it fail to "work" in more than one out of four men? That's some really iffy lotion. We need the survey question. "Did it work, yes or no?" means they completely made up the math and didn't bother to check. "Did it work, yes, no or maybe?" might give you an odd point.

! Moderator Note SFN has no affiliation with any military organizations. Any references to such by staff are purely in jest. Official apologies to anyone who took this at all seriously. Popcorn, if you have any further problems with me, or with anything to do with SFN, contact any OTHER member of the staff. Your state of mind and mine do not mix well.

Enjoy the ferrets.

You're overlooking the fact that SOME people are hard-wired to be capable of changing preference. I'm saying that all sexual preferences are hard-wired, including no preference. And I'm not Begging the Question, I'm saying that the evidence is heavily supportive of this stance; 20 years of studies back this up. I'm really sorry, but I don't believe a confirmed heterosexual male (sorry if this assumption is wrong) could "choose" to suddenly become attracted (remember, this is what we're really talking about, not just "doing it" but really WANTING, PREFERRING to "do it") to men. I'm not arguing from incredulity that it's not possible, I'm saying I've never seen any evidence that could support such a change in the way you perceive the genders. Of course it would be possible if that's the way you're genetically predisposed.... I don't understand your point. I did single out canned spinach, it's an example of something I can't choose to prefer. I can single out others. I can't choose to prefer littering because I grew up with the Keep America Beautiful campaign. I could litter if pressed to, but I can never choose to prefer to litter over not littering. I can't even imagine the stress it would put on me to try. Doesn't that make sense? It's not a genetic predisposition in these cases, of course, just examples of things I feel I have no choice over, as far as preferences go.

You need something more effective than apathy, self-loathing and equivocation. Really think about it and see if you don't agree. You have a lot to offer the world. Take a minute, take that on board. You have a lot of baggage you've preconceived about yourself that makes you depressed and stressed out. Take a minute to take that on board as well. This is just my opinion, mind you, so it's worth is inestimable ( ​), but you seem to be living just the first half of the Zen philosophy where you tear yourself down until you realize that, in the cosmic scheme of things, YOU ARE NOTHING. The half you're missing is that now, finally, YOU CAN BECOME SOMETHING. You've been working pretty hard on the first half. Maybe it's time to drop that and focus on the second? You're all stick where your ambitions are concerned. Success relies on some carrot, too.

There seem to be as many sets of road etiquette as there are drivers. Many people don't seem to relate their own condition to others when driving. They get mad when someone cuts them off because they feel it was done deliberately, but they hope we'll all forgive them when they cut us off, because with them it was just a mistake, nothing personal. A long time ago, I cut this young woman off, she was absolutely gorgeous. I was staring at her as I passed her on the highway, and so I didn't realize how close I'd gotten to the car in front of me. I swerved over in front of the young woman, then looked back in the rearview mirror to sheepishly wave in apology. She was purple with rage, frothing at the mouth, calling me filthy names. I was struck by how ugly this beautiful girl became in an instant, all because she thought I'd cut her off deliberately. I'm glad it happened, it made me much more aware of what I was doing while driving, and gave me a perspective I've appreciated all these years. I'm much more forgiving of driving mistakes.

Massive, Armageddon-level clout. "Excuse me? Relativity is wrong?! Look out your window. If relativity was wrong, how could that smart bomb know where you are?" ! Moderator Note Popcorn Sutton, you have failed to provide the required evidence for your hypothesis. If you do not comply with the rules, a Special Forces unit will be dispatched to secure your location and remove you to a suitable detention facility. Personnel are standing by with live ammunition for responses to this modnote.

Yet you feel fully qualified to declare that it's all fake. I'm pretty sure that's one of the definitions of egotistical.

I'm not sure you can make that generalization. People are already merging early or later depending on their preference, and that's what's causing tension. Both feel the other is in the wrong, so not everybody is happy about it. The early merger resents losing his position because he did what he felt was right. The later merger resents being blocked by those who don't want to let him in because he waited till the last second. It may be similar to the response to emergency vehicles. You're supposed to pull over when you hear the sirens, and sometimes that means others will pass you because they've already been passed by the emergency vehicle. I've seen people get irate because they feel taken advantage of, losing their position on the road due to an emergency situation. They've pulled over like they're supposed to, and then other cars pass them instead of letting them back in. Efficiency and fairness don't always go hand in hand.

This is what you want, right? Waterproof too. There's a fine line between DIY and brain damage. I prefer the homemade solutions too, but sometimes you find that so many others share your need that someone has solved the problem for you. Shame, too. I was really looking forward to hearing about your dental switch to activate your HelmetHornTM.

1. You're obsessed with your own version of perfection. 2. You don't understand socializing so you want everyone to stop. 3. You think talking seems fake so you want everyone to stop. 4. You think most talking is unintelligent. Given all this, how can you accuse EVERYBODY ELSE of being egotistical?! Your stance seems to need a bit of reflection. Mirrors are good for that.

I don't think it's that they find the rule inappropriate; I think it's that the rule is interpreted both ways by different people. It seems like taking unfair advantage of a road emergency to pass other cars to some, but a completely logical and efficient use of the road to others. Maybe it's a mindset here in the US. So many people approach the road like race car drivers jockeying for the top places.

Cap'n Refsmmat and Captain Panic don't count. And you can't ever ask swansont about what he really does for the US Navy; he can't tell you, AND he still has to kill you just for asking. Mooeypoo isn't with the Mossad, repeat, Isn't. With. The Mossad. And Moontanman isn't really a spy for the state of North Carolina. He just tells people that for the free drinks.

Wouldn't you question why others die but you don't?

Do you wear a helmet? You may not have to put the horn/bell on the bike.

I capitalized SOME because I didn't agree with your generalized statement, "Sexual preference can't be purely innate since people prefer homosexuality at some stage of their lives but later prefer heterosexuality and vice versa." SOME people do this. You're Begging the Question with, "... how is my original choice invalidated...". I'm saying you didn't make a choice, you were simply attracted to one gender and not the other. It was hard-wired and not really a decision for you. If you're truly saying that you could choose to be attracted to the other gender any time you want, just like you could choose apples over oranges, then I'll retract the statement. I know I never could. I grew up with Depression-era parents who thought canned foods were the height of technology. I didn't even know spinach could be fresh until I was in high school. My mother used to insist I have a bite of everything she fixed, and she loved that messy, pond-scum-looking goo she called spinach. I'm not sure whether it's the taste (it's been so long since I've had any), or the texture (fiberslime, I call it), but it's one of the few foods I just can't bring myself to eat. So I'm asking. Is this my choice? I've already admitted that I could probably eat canned spinach if there was some great incentive. But I don't think I could ever choose to prefer it to other foods. I could choose to partake, but not choose to prefer? Does that make sense?

The reason it seems like an ethical question to me is because of the "feeling cheated" component of driving. "I merged early like the sign warned me to, but that ASSHOLE just flew by on the left and forced everyone ahead of me to let him in!" The guy seems to be rewarded for his behavior with a better spot than I got, even though I obeyed the law. I feel cheated. This feeling causes traffic slowdown as well. Studies have show that it's brake lights going on that slows traffic for miles behind and causes congestion. Most of that is because we follow too closely so people can't cut in front of us, which makes us feel cheated. We have to hit the brakes instead of coasting because we're too close. It always amazes me to see 10 cars piled up with crunched bumpers just because they were all 10 feet off each others bumpers at 50mph. I think this is an issue where the practical choice can become the ethical choice by pointing out to people just why it's right to merge at the merge point and not before. I like the Dutch campaign, it could be a good solution in my state. Better that than messing around with more laws.

The title makes the question too broad and generalized. The entire drug culture? The answer has to be no. OTOH, as Captain Panic points out, we allow too much influence from corporations who use legislation to unfairly gain an edge over competing interests. If you value a market economy, you hopefully realize how inconsistent with its spirit such influence is. In Colorado, we legalized medical marijuana, and last year made it legal for recreational use as well. The benefits have been obvious, over $2M in taxes raised this last January alone, no more prison time for pot-only offenses, and a surge in economic growth from the MJ and peripheral industries. The bad side is more vague. Right now, it's hard to get numbers on traffic offenses involving MJ, because most of the documented cases also involve alcohol (it's not a large number, but it's an emotional issue being driven by fear and extreme behavior). In the past, the police only needed to find any evidence of marijuana in your system to bust you for it. Now they're struggling with how to feasibly test someone for driving while impaired only on marijuana. To date, all the testing labs I've read about have been cited with unscrupulous results and have been shut down. Half the people think it's because they were bribed by the growers, and the other half thinks they were bribed by pharma or liquor or any of the other industries who hate cannabis. There hasn't been an appreciable rise in crime as many feared. I think we still have a lot of "independent" growers selling their wares illegally to customers eager to avoid the taxes, which run around 25%. We also approved industrial hemp farming last year, and we're getting companies registering with the state to start businesses making everything from paper to cloth to car parts out of hemp. I see no downside to that part of the industry. I'm honestly torn on the whole intoxication issue, though. It's tough to get unbiased data. I've always had the impression that someone who is stoned is much more mellow than someone who has had a few alcoholic drinks, and I've equated that to which would make the more dangerous driver, but I can't trust that judgement. A comedian friend used to joke that while the drunk guy is weaving in and out of traffic, the guy who is stoned will follow a bread truck for 20 miles ("Oh wow, Wonder!"). Of course, we can prefer our drivers completely sober, but we all know that isn't always the case. And with marijuana, how long is someone considered stoned? How long after they've had marijuana are they considered safe to drive? To work?

With sexual preference, it may seem like a choice because SOME people seem to switch their preference, but I think those are isolated incidents where other factors are involved. Ask yourself if you could consciously decide to "choose" to suddenly become attracted to the gender you're not attracted to now. It wasn't an analogy about sexual preferences at all. It was an example of a decision and I'd like to know if you think it is a "choice".

! Moderator Note We encourage everyone to remember that the methodology described in this thread is controversial, and does NOT have the kind of support from our membership that the title might imply. Please take all necessary precautions when taking advice over the internet about medicine and computers. Codeine and coding are both potentially dangerous.

Greatest I Am has been banned for abusive behavior, after assuring us he wouldn't do that anymore if we let him post in the Religion section again. Sincere he was not.

Some things only seem like choices to others because they feel a loss of control if they admit they had no choice. I think sexual preference is like that. What about things you can't bring yourself to eat? Is it my choice that the very thought of canned spinach makes me retch? If someone offered me a million dollars, I would choose to eat it but I can't choose to like it, or to prefer it to other foods. Is that choice or has circumstances chosen for me?