Phi for All

This has a much higher probability of producing meaningful results. It fits well with our posting format, and allows people to collaborate as they can.

Thanks for these. I want to take my time with them but I'll get back to this. It worries me as well. It's not in the spirit of the market. It's not about investing in a company, it's about profiting from a system without helping the system, an unbalanced equation. Similarly, modern corporate charters don't seem to hold US corporations to any loyalty to the country in a strategic way. It allows corporations to benefit from being a US company without an investment in our economic strength. It bothers me that we're subsidizing some companies without requiring a certain percentage of US workers be employed there.

! Moderator Note Please, avoid making personal attacks. Attack the idea instead.

Um, hellooooo, science forum! Nothing lame about it! We had a thread like that a while back, but I'm not sure it will help: [url=http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64623-particle-accelerator-help-required/

Spyman, When I feel this way I give the person some positive rep.

I think iNow meant editing for a minute or two after posting without getting the "Edited by StringJunky, Today, 10:48 AM" tag so we can clean up any misspellings or word drops we missed.

Now that you can look at the species a bit more objectively, you can trade in the pedestal for a ladder. Other species are extremely important, but we're definitely at the top of the ladder when it comes to the future of the planet. No other animal combines our intelligence with our skill at tool use and our ability to communicate and cooperate. This allows us an awareness of the future that no other animal comes close to. We've done pretty well surviving the discovery of uranium. Not out of the woods quite yet, but we've steered clear of complete insanity and that says a lot about us. I've heard it said that may be one of the reasons we haven't seen any other space-faring races yet, that it's very difficult to survive the dangers of such a jump in destructive potential. I definitely think we'll be going off-planet, and fairly soon. I'd like to see us work globally on a space-based solar array. This would be a huge impetus to invest in our system, learn more about mining in space, and allow us to build offworld using resources found offworld. Once we start that, I don't think you'll be able to stop us. And if we're working as a single human race towards these ends, that can't be a bad thing for us here at home either.

I'm sure the crap community as a whole finds this statement highly insulting.

We don't really delete anything. It's hidden from normal viewing, in this case because it was another off-topic explanation about why this member's speculation should be allowed in a mainstream thread when he'd already received a couple of modnotes asking him not to. It was done as an alternative to suspending him, to show him that arguing modnotes in thread was going to get him nowhere. He had been told how to deal with his grievance and ignored it so his next attempt was deleted. And now you've come along and made an entire thread about it, when as a long-time member you should know that our process is as fair as we can make it. I understand you have very little trust in our moderation and suspect us of all kinds of foul deceit and censorship because we're all just closet dictators and the owners of the site are completely blind and have no idea what's going on with our evil cabal. We really appreciate you keeping us honest and looking out for the rights of the other members. You are a beacon of decency and we really don't deserve to have you. Thanks for policing us evildoers. Next time we'll just suspend the perpetrator and forget trying a more nuanced approach.

"Now we're favored guests, treated to the finest in beverages that make you blind." --Malcolm Reynolds

OK, I concede this would be more appropriate. Some might argue that a single mod was abusing his power and hiding behind a collective account. I don't see this solving any perceived problems. We use our personal accounts because it's important that a mod who is involved in a thread doesn't try to moderate in that thread. If I post a modnote, it should be clear that I have no vested interest and as little bias as possible with regard to that thread. I recommend you smiley when you say something like that.

If you use the View new Content button at the upper right of the page, you can then click on either the star (which means you have participated in the thread already) to the left of the title or the dot (which means you have not participated yet) and it will automatically take you to the last page of the thread. I find this handy. Hover your pointer over a member's name and you get a box that will allow you to view many essentials, including a link to PM the member. That's also handy.

Individuals, plural. We're not all of the same mind, no matter what you may think. And we don't choose staff based on how much we think alike. We have a very broad range of knowledge and personalities. You don't see it but behind the scenes is almost constant discussion of judgement calls. There are no willful staff members who get to push their decisions through with no regard for any dissenting opinions. I know it's very satisfying to cry censorship in these situations, but it just doesn't happen. We have probably the best mix of perspectives and intelligence among the moderators and resident experts that we've EVER had. I'm very proud of what this staff accomplishes for nothing more than the promise of extra work and some virtual cheesey crackers. They don't even require your gratitude. The benefit of the doubt would be nice though.

Alternatively, Cap'n tells me you can double-click inside a quote and it will allow you to respond to multiple parts of the post and make the edit buttons active. I haven't tried it but I will soon.

Since OChem is such a big topic to discuss, could you please tell us some of the specific problems you're having so we can focus the discussion?

From what I gather, the new system removed the profile photo option and just replaced it with the avatar.

Not sure where you saw this, but there are only a few situations where this is ever warranted. We'll delete a post if it's extremely offensive and might cause parents of younger members to take away SFN as a learning resource. We'll delete a post rather than suspend someone if they continue to argue against modnotes instead of following the instructions we give them to report the modnote post and let another staff member take care of it without further derailing a thread. We'll delete a post if it's strictly advertising another thread that person is trying to drive traffic to. Other than that, of course we delete obvious spam. What post are you referring to?

You can't copyright a formula without substantial literary expression, an explanation that accompanies the formula. So p=np=SOL.

If the only way you can get tubing is from your mother, I'm not sure telling you how to brew beer is a good idea.

This is one of the things that really pisses me off about the Republican stance on this. They scream "free market!" but they scream even louder when we talk about pulling the subsidies that give oil an unfair advantage over alternative energies (like existing infrastructure wasn't enough of an advantage). This messes up the free market pressures that higher gas prices would undoubtedly bring to bear. We're only seeing the few efforts at alternatives because gas prices in the US spiked a little over $5/gal back in 2008. If we stopped subsidies, that kind of pricing would finally allow the market to make long overdue corrections.

Analogies often fail, and sometimes make things worse. This is more of a math problem, and your equation is unequal. On one side of the equation you're including ALL the stars in the universe, and on the other side you're using a set that is limited to only visible stars, and only immense stars that will explode. Further, you're limiting that set to your lifetime of 29 years, which is really just the few years you've been watching stars and pondering this question. I think this is what leads to your incredulity.

Aren't you getting info like this from your other thread?

While I share the sentiment, I don't think replacement is the answer. A replacement could end up being just as misunderstood. Better to come up with an easily digestible, sound-byte quality phrase that is easily understood by the masses that clarifies the position most scientists take. Something along the lines of "Scientists works with theories because it keeps them always looking for a better answer. They never pretend to know The Truth."

No, faith is stupidity in this scenario. Faith is believing with all your heart that something you can't possibly know about is True, with a capital T. Unwavering faith, something many religious people talk about with pride, is usually belief in things no one can say for certain are true, like the existence of a god, or the outcome of a lottery. It's faith that would tell you you're going to win so go out and order that yacht right now. Hope is wishing for it to be real, for it to happen, but not betting the farm on it. Religious beliefs keep getting squeezed out of the gaps in our knowledge where they started thousands of years ago. Religion had an answer for why it rained, or why the lightning struck, or why the crops failed. Science began explaining why those things happened in real terms, not some mystical, unobservable deity who was all-powerful but somehow needed you to obey Him, and slowly those gaps in our knowledge replaced religious explanations. One can still hope that perhaps our consciousness may live after our bodies die, but again, hope doesn't require you to bet the farm and change your whole lifestyle in order to live by tenets set up by men who claimed to know what God wants. Hope can give you everything faith gives you without the intellectual dishonesty of fanatical belief in thngs you have no way of knowing are true. Eventually, I hope mankind can realize that faith is what makes people become extremist fanatics of the worst sort, those who can't be reasoned with and who will never listen to anything that tries to shed light on what they hold sacred. Faith is the kind of belief that holds us back from searching for better answers. Faith tells you not to bother, you've already found all your answers.

I guess we can assess that on a case by case basis. As I said, it's cool if it results in greater clarity, but not if it starts a whole "you're a great big doody-head" tangent.