Phi for All

Well, I called it, and now we see what the magician was doing with the hand you couldn't see.... http://www.forbes.co...causes-concern/ http://www.sciencefo...513#entry709513

I haven't completely read this article about it for accuracy, but Forbes was the name I trusted most in a search. And thanks for those other links, rigney, +1.

So one one hand you argue that liberal intellectuals don't like separation of powers in government, but on the other hand you claim that supporting a separation of church and state makes them afraid? I find this type of cherry-picking very typical of Republicans. You want every embryo protected but don't want your taxes to support all the unwanted children once they're born. You want your right to bear arms and then scream that we need more police and prisons but we have to stop growing the government. You want less regulations that stop businesses from harmful practices and more regulations that bar citizens from suing businesses when they're harmed. You want less taxes so you can create jobs for America and then you create those jobs overseas. And the big deal is not some quick mention of literal Biblical interpretation, the big deal is that some of these ultra-conservative, Republican parents want evolution and a great deal more removed from the curricula because higher order thinking is causing their children to question what these parents hold sacred, and that seems un-American to them. Progress, intelligence and knowledge are becoming anathema in this country thanks to your "What is the big deal" attitude.

Substitute any nationality or skin color for the word "women" and you should have your answer. What Romney (and Hoveland, apparently) have forgotten is the word "qualified". If people are equally qualified for a position, using race or gender or any other metric that has nothing to do with capability is unproductive and discriminatory.

That is an incredibly inaccurate and self-serving assertion. I can't think of a single person here or anywhere else I've heard of that would support this. You're going to leave a lot of animals sleeping on the cold ground if you continue to make your strawmen this big.

Does a cactus have some magical ability to divert radiation to itself, or are you placing the cactus between you and the computer screen? If, IF there was any harmful radiation coming out of your monitor, there are many things that could block it more effectively (and less painfully) than a cactus, but you would have to block the screen completely and that really defeats the purpose of a visibly (non-harmfully) radiating screen.

As iNow said, telling her how you feel isn't always the best way to approach women. You can still be honest and tell her what you like about her. Don't lay it on too thick, pick one thing and tell her about it. "I really like talking to you, since most people forget to use their brain a lot." Although if she smiles at that, you could probably add, "OK, I like your smile, too, but that's it."

Do you ever get an opportunity to just talk to her, without a ton of other people around?

The only complaints we ever get about the system are from people who've earned negative reputation. In fact, you're starting to sound familiar.

If that error was keeping you from productive and meaningful progress, why would you object to giving them credit? Simpler, maybe. Limited in expertise, probably. More prone to compounded errors, definitely. If I couldn't muster the respect to get her username right, I'd be afraid of her too. Probably. Admins can set up a subforum usable only by people with group permissions. But that's counter to what we do in a discussion forum. Again, it sounds like you want a space where you can work with nobody to point out your mistakes. You may think that would be productive, but history proves you wrong. Small, like-minded, isolated groups often come up with some fairly hideous collaborations.

I see a problem with the "go sit with a group you don't normally sit with" day. If everyone is supposed to do that, then there would be no normal "groups" to sit with. Everyone would be individuals, stripped of their group identity, and while that's not a bad thing, it doesn't really follow what the organizers say they're trying to accomplish. The gay indoctrination accusation is, of course, ludicrous. It's always amazing to me how much these "family" groups feel threatened by homosexuality. They're so afraid they might get some of that gay on themselves.

To me, this sounds like, "Give me a place where everyone agrees with me and no one points out mistakes." Paranoid and crotchety (whoever that is). If you make enough money from your applications to drive the Thing, make sure to get the convertible. If you truly learn something, it's all worth it. That's why we're all here.

Some of this crap is SOOOOOOO inane that it makes you wonder if it's not some kind of magician's hand-waiving to hide what they're really doing, like messing with voter registration and voting hours while waiving the Constitution around and claiming the president isn't a citizen. Is this just to distract from more fraudulent efforts to manipulate the voting process and get Mitt elected at ANY cost? Are we going to see more 2000/2004 close-call ballot box deceit?

! Moderator Note I removed your email address. First, we don't know you, and second, this is a discussion forum and we all get so jealous when knowledge isn't shared. I hope you understand, and welcome to SFN. As Essay suggests, the first thing to do is give us an overview of your ideas, as briefly and eloquently as possible.

Qualified men don't have families, or don't have families that need them at home much. Of course, this has been part of the new corporate business model for the last decade or so; 50-60 hour weeks, no complaints, bare-bones benefits, don't take your two weeks vacation all at once or your job may be up for grabs, bring your own coffee, and oh, be thankful you even have a job (at the same pay you've had for the last eight years).

I think it was obvious from his own words in the debate that he finds it difficult to find qualified women, partially because if you do they'll have to be given special privileges to deal with their families, privileges that he doesn't think qualified men would need.

Believe me, when we set up Speculations, we were totally prepared to move ideas that weren't mainstream into Spec, review and discuss them, and if any were found viable, we'd move them back into mainstream fora and start talking about ways to test and make predictions based on the hypotheses. Invariably, the OP asks us to overlook obvious errors and gaps in the beginning and just look at the "theory" as a whole. They become incensed when people refuse to start investing time and resources in these ideas until those gaps and errors are addressed. Most of these types of speculation are from those who don't understand the accepted theories and want to replace them with something that makes sense to them. I understand that; science is not always intuitive, it doesn't always click easily into place. But these speculations are never based on a mathematical model and they always fail to address the reality that the accepted theories actually work. As tmpst says, we need an idea that is worth the effort. It might even be worth it to teach something to those who don't understand, but in virtually every case, the one who originates the speculation leaves in a huff after having been shown where they went wrong, convinced fully that they were never wrong in the first place. If we could overcome that attitude somehow, I think this section would be a lot less abrasive. I also think it's the Speculator's job to capitulate; I don't see any of the serious scientists here giving up on theories they fully understand that have a proven track record of being correct.

I think it's partially that, and also that so many Americans have this fantasy vision of what this country is all about. We brag about our freedoms and lifestyles and economic superiority, but to some that means never questioning that superiority in any way, like we'll break it if we look too closely. Like you're only patriotic if you just accept it all and don't try to make things better. Considering that we spend more than any other country in the world on health care, why do we have more deaths per capita from birth complications that Kuwait, Bulgaria and South Korea? And what do you think fanciful attitudes like Rep. Walsh's do to help us improve those numbers? How can he justify his party's attitude that 47% of the people are completely dependent on the government when he's completely dependent on the concept that you "can't find one instance" where a woman could die from birth complications because modern technology will save them? Has he or anyone from his office bothered to read the statistics that say birth complications nationwide have more than doubled in the last 20 years?

I hope that's sincere, because it sounds like something a person who is just a little right of center would readily admit.

Um, I'm pretty sure he's not bragging about anything he hasn't fulfilled, just the ones he has. You continue to ignore all his accomplishments, despite having them laid out before you multiple times. And if this is your metric, why do you think Bush 2.0 is better? I won't even go back to "Mission Accomplished, Gee I can't think of three mistakes I made in my first four years" GW Bush's unjustified bragging. Let's take Mitt's bragging about how much his mandated health plan in Massachusetts cares about people, about how much empathy it has with the working class, when he basically wants to repeal Obama's mandated health reform for the whole country, replacing all the best parts with... nothing. No protection for pre-existing conditions, no protection from unscrupulous health insurers, nothing. Bush 2.0 constantly talks about how he helped Massachusetts, but he will repeal that same help just because it came from Obama. Why don't you have a problem with THAT, rigney? Here's Mitt bragging about his decision to use Chinese labor while at Bain Capital: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/10/1129902/-Mitt-Romney-admits-using-Chinese-slave-labor-Bain

For those of you who believed the GOP spin that Akin was a lone extremist working from bad information given to him by a third party, here's the latest insanity from a prominent Republican. It seems Republican Rep. Joe Walsh from Illinois claims that women don't need an exception for abortions that threaten the life of the mother because modern science guarantees that women can't be hurt due to birth complications. After everything that's been going on with regard to misunderstood science, how can these people continue to spout off to the media on issues they're just guessing about? And I guess a deeper question is, is it really insanity if so many people believe the crap they're saying?

Nice try, magnet boy. Those of us in the solar and geothermal industries know you have a hidden stash of magnets. We've been watching you and we're coming for the speakers in your stereo and computer, just as soon as you step outside to resupply. OVERTHROW OVERUNITY!!!

If they were obeying a god, why is it called a "religious crime"? Isn't the god the only one who could prosecute a religious crime? If you're asking about secular prosecution of murders committed by people acting under the orders of a leader, even a god, I don't think it would matter at all that their deity told them to, unless there was no division between church and state and the authorities deemed the murders to be justified. In the case of the military, at least in the US, soldiers have the right to refuse orders if they feel they are illegal. Culpability would be equally shared if they followed through with unsanctioned murder.

There's nothing in that speech that could remotely be called a lie, and consequently nothing he said about calling Benghazi an act of terror during the debate could be called a lie either. For those who get bored easily, here's the relevant part of the Rose Garden speech: An "act of terror", "this terrible act". How much clearer do you need it to be, for Pete's sake?! Think of it this way. If, a few days after the Rose Garden speech, it was found that the attack was made by escaped mental patients who got hold of some guns and incendiaries and thought they were attacking the home of Adolph Hitler, don't you think the president would have been chastised for prematurely calling it an act of terror? And if so, why is it not good enough to be called the truth now that we know it was?

That's interesting. "I will love you till you cross me, then you can go to hell." There's a song in there somewhere.