Jump to content

Phi for All

Moderators
  • Posts

    23493
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    167

Everything posted by Phi for All

  1. ! Moderator Note It seems pretty clear that you have fundamental differences with our approach here at SFN. It's also abundantly clear that your grievances are not shared by anyone else. This leads to a very obvious conclusion. Rather than ask you to continue to participate in a community whose leadership you oppose so vociferously, we invite you to look elsewhere for discussion. Rather than gripe about the moderators in every thread, we invite you to start your own forum where you can seek the perfection you're looking for. Rather than continue to degrade the work we all put into this forum with your anger and hate, we invite you to leave.
  2. Why not? Everything you asked for, causes, symptoms, treatment, it's all right there. And if you have more specific questions, the best thing to do is follow the links given to the actual studies provided in the Notes section.
  3. ! Moderator Note Nabhan, advertising your blog via a special thread is against the rules you agreed to when you joined. Please feel free, though, to put a link to your blog in your signature. We look forward to your involvement in our discussions. Thanks for understanding why we can't let everybody advertise here.
  4. @overtone, great points, +1 Corporate interests are probably the biggest contributor, imo. It's not a conspiracy, any more than evolution is a conspiracy. Modern corporate models just seem to lead towards prolonging the periods of greatest profit. Companies that have a lot invested in say, oil infrastructure, will spend a lot to keep us using oil. It may sound greedy, but the pace of modern technology requires a corporation to get as much return as possible on investments. It's not evil, but it often doesn't consider the greater good. I think these models have done a lot to hurt innovation and ecology. And I think AGW denial is an result of the cumulative effects of allowing businesses to lobby for legislative favors, giving them control of the media that feeds us most of our knowledge, underfunding education, and a dependency on cheap fuel.
  5. Liz, is there some reason you don't want to keep the pills in the bottle the pharmacist recommends for UV and impact protection, and then just seal the bottle in the vacuum bag you're talking about so moisture and air don't get to the pills?
  6. Oh come on, we've been over this part too. "Potential for life" isn't a good enough reason to deny women the right to abortion. Imagine I used some of my cellular material to clone myself. I've started the process, so the cellular material (which always represented the potential for life anyway) is now viable and developing. Cloning is really little different than a single egg splitting into twins, and you can't say it's unnatural because humans are part of nature, as is everything we can devise. Are you going to tell me I don't have the right to stop the development of that clone? That somehow it has personhood and rights that supersede my own? And if I do have that right, then all your reasoning about abortion is nothing more than a Puritanical attitude towards sex and reproduction, trying to condemn women as sluts for enjoying sex while pretending it's all about responsible male integrity.
  7. There's really not much you could do about a watery consistency once the egg has been opened, and you already know the consistency is sometimes too watery, so a device that measures it wouldn't really be meaningful to you. Your best chance is to handle your eggs in a consistent fashion and experiment with what works best. Part of your problem could also be the age of the eggs, and/or the temperature and humidity where they're stored. I've had personal experience where older eggs had a more watery white. Also, if your storage temperature is too high and the humidity is low it tends to affect the consistency a lot. You should be able to work with established numbers for this, rather than investing in a device or service. http://www.livestron.../#ixzz29C6nlLm4
  8. Phi for All

    VP Debate

    I'm completely disgusted by both parties at this point. Both the GOP and the DNC have made this all about the money. I don't get information about polls sent to me anymore, it's all about how much money the other guys are raising. And Republican friends tell me they get the same thing. And isn't it a coincidence that so many major corporations promoting the candidates own so many media outlets now? They're the real winners here, getting so much of this money we're donating for ad buys. I keep wondering why these guys who have a billion dollars to spend need my $5. I suppose it's really just the psychology that's important. If you give them $5, you'll also be 99% sure to vote for them.
  9. So if the pills are left in the bottle, they could be sealed airtight any way liz wants and still have the protection the manufacturer intended. Then there are no worries about poly bags and whether they can touch the meds.
  10. It really seems like it, rigney. I just don't understand where you're going with all this. I think a mistake was made trying to link this incident to a movie protest, but I still remember hearing early on that a protest may have provided some cover for the attack, so there may have been some confusion early on. But to now suggest that the White House knew there was going to be an attack and purposely denied extra security is just insane, I mean who would that possibly benefit? It's not like Obama is itching to invade Libya so he lets us be attacked to gain voter sympathy for yet another war. All other reasons seem equally insane until you get to political maneuvers, and that seems to fit the bill. This is an attempt to make the president look bad by capitalizing on a tragedy that was no where near his purview as POTUS. If you want to blame someone, blame Paul Ryan et alii for not approving the requested embassy budgets.
  11. The only verifiable requests I could find were the ones to keep the SST team for another three months (approved extension in February, but second request for extension was denied so the SST team left in August), and the one requesting a DC-3 plane for the SST team. I've heard many claims for more troops being denied, but I have seen no actual evidence, like memos or even State Dept acknowledgement, of those requests.
  12. You forgot to ask how this fits in with the Fetzengru matrix.
  13. Phi for All

    VP Debate

    Well, telling easily verifiable lies was already taken.
  14. Hold your arms out wide. Picture on one hand "hatred of your idea". Picture on the other hand "sincerely excited about your idea". Now bring your hands together and picture me right in the middle (try not to choke me). My apologies if I gave you any other impressions. I would like to say that the staff consensus is that you did try your best to follow the rules of Speculation. You responded fairly well to criticism but were simply unable to come up with supportive evidence. The experiment was pretty cool, but you misunderstood its relevance. We gave you another chance to present your idea when you promised you had come up with more work with supportive evidence. What you came up with was more areas to apply your original flawed premise. You wasted that chance, and then you sent a foul-mouthed PM to one of the staff members. It was only your earlier efforts at being civil and attempting to learn that kept you from being banned instead of suspended. It made me wonder though, was that just a lapse in judgement or was that the real you?
  15. More men were not requested. What was requested was that a special operations team of 16 be left in place instead of removed as per procedure. They had already been there on assignment after the revolution, and a request for a 3-month extension of their presence had already been granted. The second request for another 3 months is the one that had been denied. A request for a plane was also made, and that was denied but provisions for domestic flight arrangements were made. The special ops team is probably not used as normal guard troops. They usually come in with a mission of securing an area, training the local forces and closing any security risks. Once they come in and do their thing, it's usually time for regular troops to take over on the day-to-day routine. This is speculation on my part, though. I have no idea if that's the actual procedure used here. The other problem is that you're imagining these guys being "stripped" from surrounding Ambassador Stevens with a wall of armed protection against exactly this kind of attack. The reality is, even when the team was deployed in Libya, they spent most of their time in Tripoli, no matter where the ambassador was. Chances are they wouldn't have been near Benghazi. And even if some of them had been in Benghazi, it's doubtful they would have changed much, unless they carry oxygen with them and could've prevented the ambassador's death from smoke inhalation. I would imagine SOP is to get the ambassador into the safe room ASAP. That's what happened. If you want to ask questions and point fingers, tell my why the embassy safe room could become filled with smoke. Aren't those supposed to be designed with a siege in mind? "Smoke 'em out" seems practically elementary tactics on the invader's part. Anticipating rigney's next question, I have no idea why the Democrats install such shoddy safe rooms whenever they gain power. I guess they should have just left the old Republican safe room that Bush installed in Benghazi after replacing Clinton's Democrat model.
  16. Thanks for not listening.
  17. Think about it. If your idea had any merit you could demonstrate, and we could analyze and reproduce successful results, and if it then went on to become peer-reviewed and part of mainstream science, don't you think we'd all be anxious to be part of it? What you say makes no sense here. As far as your idea NOW being much more mature and powerful, well, we've heard that before. In fact, we believed you last time you said this and allowed you to re-present it. That was just more of the same, no supportive evidence and plenty of evidence that refuted your claims. And I think that's why you're having so much trouble finding journals to review it. If it can be easily refuted here where we have a mix of professionals and skilled amateurs, I think most journals would feel it wasn't worth their reviewer's time. I don't say that to be mean. If you were designing a new car and presenting it to Mercedes Benz, they'd probably stop you when they got to the part where it has no wheels, and wouldn't bother looking at the rest of your design until you could adequately explain how it was going to move.
  18. I understand why you feel the need to say this, but it isn't true, none of it. You simply failed to support your claims, after being given multiple chances to provide such support. Nobody on staff "hates" your ideas, they simply don't find them valid. We even helped in developing experimentation, so thanks very much, Mr Ungrateful, for your "hateful" remarks.
  19. What if they used Kabbalah? Or the I Ching? or the Book of Mormon? It's kind of a love/hate relationship between government, business and the public when it comes to science. Business needs the possibilities provided by knowledge, but it doesn't want the public educated too much or they start questioning the carefully funded status quo ("Why are AA batteries so expensive? If the materials were really that valuable, wouldn't we be recycling them?"). Government is torn between the businesses who help them fund campaigns and the public who votes them into office. And the public would probably love to learn more about everything, but also cares little for putting much money or effort into it. The public wants information in bite-sized chunks and science information is like eating a pizza; you take a normal bite of crust but a lot more cheese and toppings than you planned on comes off with it.
  20. I think you should either give us a link to where this was said or you should stop making the claim. Until that time I think your talk of cowardly bullies is fairly hypocritical.
  21. Only if you publish the results when they fail.
  22. How is he putting words in your mouth? He quoted what you said and asked you to clarify it. It DOES seem contradictory to say you're not accusing anyone of wrongdoing and then claim there is a "stink" that needs to be erased. Who caused the stink if no one did anything wrong? I think the real stink is coming from Romney's campaign. Why anyone would want to vote for a man who would take a cheap political shot at the tragic death of one of our ambassadors is beyond me. This is one of those situations that are far too easy to exploit, since technically you could always say that not enough was done to protect ANYONE who gets killed. To use it to imply some kind of intentional negligence is criminal and unworthy of someone who wants to lead the country. Congratulations, Mitt Romney, you have justified the accusations of all those who claimed Bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
  23. Is there a reason you can't share this with the rest of the membership? Behind-the-scenes discussions are limited in their productivity.
  24. If the president goes after Romney every time he says something hypocritical or implausible or contradictory (like bashing Obama as elitist for going to Harvard), the president would quickly find himself only voicing negativity and looking like a bully instead of a leader. I think Romney's campaign knows this and continues to throw out absurdities to provoke Obama into lashing out.
  25. Only if they're gummy cows. Gummy bears would be a normal circle-of-life issue.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.