Phi for All

Being more successful at moisture and gas protection to ensure a longer shelf life is NOT marketing, it's effective engineering that helps the manufacturers and distributors more than the customers. Being more successful at helping customers with dosage schedules is NOT marketing, it's effective engineering that promotes safety and better health. Being more successful at helping seniors open the packaging is NOT marketing, it's effective engineering aimed at ease of use for the largest group of users. These things can, of course, be touted as benefits in the company's marketing platform, along with other properties of the drug in question. But to say, "the packaging has everything to do with marketing" is a false statement, imo. I've re-read the thread several times now and have completely failed to understand where this argument is coming from. Did someone mention that packaging costs were prohibitive or detrimental in any way? Just like Dekan's argument that blister packs are, "To make them hard to get at, without tearing a fingernail or using a sharp knife", I fail to see how this supports the It's-only-marketing stance. Maybe I need more coffee, or some kind of blister-packed caffeine pill. I have read where blister packaging is used a great deal more in Europe than in the US, but that it's starting to pick up here as well. Is there some kind of prejudice against this practice that I'm not aware of, something that would bias you against any kind of performance-based analysis? Please forgive me. I was going by the section the OP chose for this thread, mistakenly believing it had some relevance.

Did you read either of your links, rigney? I did. The anti-Obama one claims, "Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the 'British East Africa Protectorate'". The Wikipedia link is a bit more scholarly and accurate, as you would imagine, citing, "The British Empire established the East Africa Protectorate in 1895, known from 1920 as the Kenya Colony. The independent Republic of Kenya was founded in December 1963." So I guess it WAS known as Kenya in 1961. People wouldn't have called in Kenya Colony then, just like they don't call it the Republic of Kenya now. They call it by that simple name, Kenya. Btw, is there a remote chance you might admit you're wr... wr... wrong about this? Just askin'.

EMField has been suspended for 7 days for continuing to hijack threads after numerous staff warnings. Again.

! Moderator Note You've been warned multiple times about hijacking mainstream science threads with your pet theories. People come to the mainstream sections for mainstream, accepted answers, not woo. Another week suspension, second strike, next time it will be permanent.

Apparently not subtle enough. Next time, more cheek and less tongue.

Actually, if Romney wins and the economy improves, we'll never really know if it was because of the change in leadership or because of momentum from what Obama has accomplished so far. The best outcome is Obama winning, then if our balls grow or fall off we'll know it was due mostly to Obama's leadership. At this point, knowing that Romney just wants more Bush, I'm more than willing to take a chance on the upwards trends and what seems to be working.

Besides susceptibility to diseases, there have also been studies linking inbreeding to mental disorders such as retardation, low intelligence, unipolar and bipolar depression, and schizophrenia. http://www.matthewck...lution_2006.pdf (7.4. The effect of inbreeding on mental disorders)

Actually, the phalanx might be better discussed in the Psychology section. Much of it's success was in showing, to the attackers who mostly thought of themselves as individuals, a united front against opposition. It's a bit daunting to think of attacking such an organized enemy who isn't charging or fleeing, but rather staying calmly in one place, ready to meet your single attack with locked shields and determination. I guess physically the phalanx was most effective at the Battle of Thermopylae because it didn't allow the pressure of the attacking Persians to seep in from the sides (flanks), providing a tight seal for the pass. I've also imagine that the Persians numbers worked against them at a certain point, making it difficult (and scary) to keep up the pressure as you walk over the heaps of your own dead to get at the wall of shields and spears presented by the Greeks.

When tablets rub against each other in a bottle, a bit of the drug is scraped off, wasted in the bottom of the bottle. And after the bottle is opened, moisture can cause tablets and capsules to stick together. This is the Engineering section, where engineering answers are usually sought. We don't have a marketing section, sorry. Perhaps you want the Psychiatry and Psychology section?

No, we just have to look up the definition of infertility. I'll leave that up to your intellectual honesty. Especially since "causes defects" 100% of the time only appears in your post.

Incorrect. Breeding 15-17% less often ≠ infertility.

Blister packs keep pills from scraping against each other, making the dosages more consistent. It's also easier to tell how many you've previously taken than pills from a bottle. They're also more moisture-resistant than bottles that have been opened. Other products use blister packaging as well. Are there any specific "general packaging methods" you had in mind? Other pharmaceutical packaging you had in mind besides blisters? That was the only type I could think of off the top of my head.

Great point. The Cavendish banana, the most commonly sold banana in the world, lacks genetic diversity and is thus vulnerable to diseases like Panama disease. The whole strain could be wiped out and there really is nothing similar to replace it. The Gros Michel banana that people ate up until the 1960s was supposedly bigger and sweeter than the Cavendish, and it got wiped out by an earlier strain of Panama disease.

The homework help section is not a standard discussion area, so your question is not meaniongful. It's clear you have an agenda regarding being called a troll at another forum, and now you're bringing your grievances here. It's inconsistent with our purpose to discuss anything in such a loaded and dishonest manner, when it's clear you have no intention of learning anything from the questions you're asking and the answers you're not listening to.

This is not completely true. At least here, we have written evidence when someone is trolling. It's usually quite clear when someone is avoiding the evidence that supports the position of another and failing to provide his own, and instead puts forth inflammatory and provocative hand-waiving in order to detract from a weak argument. While we may guess whether the trolling was intended as such from the outset or not, the results are still the same. Trolling is often just a version of the red-herring fallacy, consciously or unconsciously trying to mislead the reader from a poorly supported position.

You do this constantly. You ask a question, you're provided with lots of facts and links to evidence that contradicts what you're arguing, and then you say, Oh well, it's up to the voters to decide. Why are you asking these questions if not to better inform yourself? When have we EVER made it about opinions and not supported them with LOTS of evidence in the face of your unsupported claims? I'm not attacking YOU. I'm saying this is the way your arguments come across. And guess what? Even if Obama is re-elected, if he suddenly wants to continue the Bush tax cuts for the top 1%, and wants to provide education vouchers and privatize more prisons, I'm NOT going to respect those directives. I would fight like hell to get him out of office with everything an American citizen can bring to bear.

I think it's important to read it cover-to-cover if you're going to either completely accept it or totally reject it. That said, skepticism tells us that it's safer to reject something if you find parts you disagree with than to accept it because you agree with some parts. There are many people who currently embrace it without reserve who haven't read it cover-to-cover. I think that's dangerous. Those who haven't read it but object to the parts they have read may not have a comprehensive perspective, but it's not unjust. I like certain aspects of Judaism but I'm not willing to embrace it or even fully investigate it because I like bacon.

I didn't know the man personally, but if he rejected rational arguments and clear, supportive evidence without putting forth any of his own in an attempt to sow discord without furthering a discussion, then yes, he was most likely a troll.

Now why does that sound so familiar? dmaiski asked why incest was wrong, and you don't think genetics has any relevancy?

There's no evidence to support an hypothesis like that. There isn't enough hollow internal space inside the Earth to hold waters from a global flood that could cover the highest mountains. I think, like others here, that if there is any historical accuracy to the biblical account, there could have been a local flood that encompassed the world within the view of the chronicler. But even that would have been an exaggeration for the reasons John Cuthber mentioned last. So, no valid scientific hypothesis about a global flood that covers the mountaintops. None.

As I said before, moral justifications would seem to be confined to extremely close familial relationships where there might be an abuse of authority component. Mother/son and father/daughter matings are highly suspect in this regard. Aunts and uncles mating with their respective nephews and nieces probably also fall into this category. This suspicion probably flows naturally, and perhaps undeservedly, into less close relationships between cousins. Mating with a first cousin has its dangers, but I think the real reason it's considered "wrong" is because many such matings don't happen in isolation, and there is evidence to suspect such prolonged matings within a population do produce harmful genetic disorders. Iirc, the European royalty had at least 20 cases of hemophilia within three or four generations of cousin marriages from the Victorian era.

Oh GOD, how HORRIBLE of me to attack you in such a senseless and brutal fashion! Can you ever forgive me? I can assure you that any future attacks will have a great many more smileys and perhaps a few hundred more "thanks". Or perhaps I'm overreacting a bit....

! Moderator Note It would NOT be more appropriate. It would be inconsistent with our purpose as a discussion forum. Please respond publicly so all can benefit from the exchange.

Since the dangers of inbreeding increase if practiced through multiple generations though, the taboo probably is morally consistent given the propinquity of family units. Remove the taboo and you'd be much more likely to have close relatives breeding exclusively with each other over time.

Well, four US citizens have told you there's no need for surprise because there is no association with the name Sidney and "older Jewish gents". The fact that suburban Denverite women are naming their little blond daughters Sidney should support that as well.