Phi for All

I guess what they're working with here, from this Wikipedia article, is avgas, a type of aviation fuel, or something of similar quality. I wonder if remote areas would actually have that much excess CO2 to capture. I also wonder what the effect on plant life would be if this were put into large scale production. Maybe a stupid question, but do we know how much CO2 is considered "excess", and what is necessary for trees and other flora?

Sure there is. Depending on where you live, make sure your government knows how important it is to you that manufacturers are held to standards that insure they don't irradiate their customers. They probably do this already, but business is always looking make the most profit with the least expenditure. Sometimes they cross this line so it's up to us to make sure regulations are effective in protecting us.

This is an important issue with sex, drugs, maybe even rock and roll. Can we always afford to wait until a child expresses an interest in more knowledge about these subjects? Since we can't be with them all the time, and they aren't always forthcoming about their inquisitiveness, do we try to put these issues in front of them tentatively and see what the reaction is, or do we wait until they either approach us for more information or it becomes a problem we need to deal with?

Oh yeah, he's Republican all right. They say they value personal property rights and then they go right for the spleen.

Unfortunately, I don't think we'll see much in the way of personal power in the future. Believe me, I would love to have some kind of home generated electricity and a couple of electric cars. I'd slowly replace my appliances to run on DC. But with something as volatile as av fuel, I don't see local gov allowing people to create and store their own fuel. Unless you could start a grassroots lobby movement that could outspend the big guys who've built the current infrastructure. You're right, this would have to go hand-in-hand with renewable energy as it becomes cheaper. No way is this viable as anything but an air cleaner until then.

If the costs can be brought down under what we pay for aviation fuel, that could mean a tremendous boost for tourism as well as reducing carbon emissions. I love ideas that solve multiple problems!

It says he's probably Republican.

You've got to be kidding me! This is one of the cornerstones of democracy. At some point the process should seen as above reproach. Election irregularities erode the confidence of the voters, and cause fewer people to be interested in taking part in the process as a whole. If you suspect the vote is being rigged, why bother?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonatal_perception Most abortions happen well before 30 weeks.

I resent that.

You cut off my smiley when you quoted me. It wasn't meant to be antagonistic. You said you hate everybody, it seemed funny you were giving relationship advice. I understand you hate me too, but don't think I was trying to make you resent me.

Well I can see how a thread called Relationship Help would attract you.

Most things you like about people are probably things they like about themselves already, but yeah, you understand the whole purpose behind this type of compliment. It's honest and ego-stroking at the same time.

Hart Intercivic makes VOTING MACHINES: http://www.hartinter...c.com/pages/154

I still say tell her something you like about her, rather than how you feel about her. The difference may seem subtle but it's huge.

This is such a cheap argument. Not all pregnancies are aborted, not all are unwanted, not all babies would be a punishment, so please don't try to push that strawman on us. The facts remain that bringing a child into the world and caring for it is a completely different prospect for every person in the country, while the need for intimacy is very basic. It's ridiculous to expect that every child conceived be brought to term. Abortions will happen whether we want them to or not, so we need to make sure they're done safely.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of those. No one gets banned or even suspended based solely on the vote of the single Mod who posts it in Banned and Suspended Users. It takes at least four Mods agreeing to ban someone. Although we do end up seeing those rep points as a testimony to how annoying the user was to the rest of the membership. Or for reasons that don't seem right to you. As I look around at the responses to your posts, the reasons become clearer. The fact that you can ask this shows how inconsistent you are with our purpose.

I rarely check a user's total rep. Rep points do make a difference to me in a thread, I have to say. But it's not a guarantee that I'm going to agree. I've often given positive rep to someone who got a negative point I didn't agree with, especially if it's on the opening post. It's not necessarily an indicator of how helpful or smart someone is. I think it's more an indicator that someone has made posts that other people thought were particularly well done or particularly badly done.

If you fail at what? If you do what, you don't gloat?

His post quality was much improved after he was banned. He re-joined as ACUV and earned -2 rep in 85 posts. It could be argued as well that the longer he was here, the worse his post quality became as more and more people objected to his posts. It tends to work that way with people who troll discussion forums. If they start out uber abrasive, they get banned uber quickly, and they know that, so they usually start out with more civility.

I try to NOT give negative reputation on anyone's OP. That's just my personal policy, though. I don't think there are any bad subjects to bring up, although it's possible I may have marked down someone who was opening a thread with some copypaste creationist garbage that's been refuted a few hundred thousand times.

Well, you and I think so, but that's why I quoted what illuusio said about "huge arguments when it's time to cash collected credits, maybe even lawsuits".

Thanks, that's why you sound familiar. You're questionposter, and Steevey (who you created to give yourself more rep points the last time you argued against the rep system). If the system is so bad, why do you use so many underhanded methods to make yourself look better? If this site is so horrible, why do you keep creating more users every time you get yourself banned?

! Moderator Note Moved to Religion, since that's the direction it's heading.

Let me ask you a few questions. Your original idea was poorly supported and had many flaws that kept it from being taken seriously, you've said this yourself. If nine more people were to come on board your collaboration, take the work you started and really make it work, doing all the things you're unable to do, make the calculations, develop the model and present the paper to peer review in a way that gains it a true standing within the scientific community, is your share of the credit going to be an equal tenth, or would you require more because it was your concept originally? How are you going to justify to your fellow collaborators that you've already applied individually for patents based on the idea you're collaborating on? If your original concept gets abandoned but leads the other nine collaborators to something much more productive that eventually becomes accepted theory, what should your share be?