Phi for All

That's been a particularly effective arrow in the Republican quiver for quite some time now. In fact, you can usually determine exactly what the Republicans are guilty of by listening to what they accuse the Democrats of. They're now accusing Obama of sending tax dollars to foreign countries during the stimulus to cover up their stripping of Obama's "Buy American" provision from that same package. Better watch out, the Republicans have been accusing the Obama of running the dirtiest campaign ever, so if they run true to form it's going to get even worse than it already is. I'm sure by November Obama is going to be a gay intellectual Nazi abortion doctor who supports science. * GASP *

Ah, so the Republicans get to say they're going to take the Democrat shackles off business owners and that's OK, but the Democrats don't get to say the Republicans are going to put workers in chains because "chains" evoke slavery while "shackles" don't. Got it. I think the Republican efforts to destroy public education have been working rather well, and this just proves it.

Going back to the kind of tax structures and governmental goals we had when we considered ourselves prosperous (in the main) would probably be considered a fundamental change, but I'd be willing to bet a majority of Americans would like to see that kind of prosperity again. You know, back when companies and corporations made good profits, workers made good wages and the scales were in better balance. Mercantilism, that's over there near Neomercantilism, on the border of Communism, right?

To me, it comes down to what works and what doesn't. We all (I hope) can agree that the US has been doing some fundamentally wrong things for quite a while. We've made some errors that are piling up on us and it needs to stop. So why vote in the guys who want to keep doing things the same way? The most frustrating part of this discussion to me is that we're obviously in the throes of capitalism gone amok. We all know that our democracy is like a set of scales that needs balance to benefit the country as a whole. Repealing regulations like the Glass-Steagall Act, enacting laws that favor corporations too much have tipped the scales. We now see ultra-wealthy companies that don't hire Americans yet expect us to have the money to buy their products. They don't want to pay their share of taxes but want us to maintain the infrastructure they gain the most from. And to top it all off, there are way too many people like rigney in this country that have the colossally intransigent opinion that, in this time of the most capitalistic political system the US has ever spawned, we are somehow, in some indefinably impossible and illogical way, bordering on f***ing Communism. Let. That. Sink. In. We had eight years of Bush horribleness that trashed the balanced budget and took us from some of the greatest surpluses we've ever seen to some of the worst deficit spending we've ever seen. Obama has only had four years to try to fix that. I say we give him another four years before we even think about handing things back over to the party that seems to like it when we're all messed up.

morgsboi permanently banned for abusive tantrums brought on by boredom and lack of a need for any more brains.

I never said it wasn't real THEN, rigney. It was very real, and that's why it works NOW as a scare tactic for the generations that remember when it was a real threat. Can't you see the difference? Communism = BAD so all the corporate-funded pundits have to do is associate communism with socialism (which isn't true either, btw) and then call anything Obama does socialism and BINGO! Suddenly Obama = BAD. We all need to stop being so easy to fool, but mostly you.

This right here is a big part of why you get jumped on. You're old enough to remember the Communist scare, and that fear is being used against you. We are NOWHERE NEAR anything like communism in this country, but it's a great place to poke at for you and your generation when the folks in power want you to hate something. Right now in this country, a lot of very successful corporations have spent a lot of money jiggering the political and informational systems in their favor. They got the Telecommunications Act of 1996 passed so they can own the media as well as their other businesses, which protects them from true investigative journalism. They repealed the Glass-Steagall Act that protected our banking system from the kind of speculations that they're now able to do, much to our detriment. They got the Citizens United ruling so now their corporations get treated like People while their corporate charters protect them from the kind of punishment People are kept in line with. And with hundreds of other smaller acts they've been able to make us all believe we're standing on opposite sides of a fence about EVERYTHING, keeping us all very worried about silly things like turning to communism. The multi-national conglomerate corporations own both the Democrats and the Republicans, why on earth would they want the government to be in control of everything and the people all buying state-manufactured goods? Think about it, rigney.

Why would this make 0 impossible?

As has already been mentioned, our minds look for patterns all the time, using virtually all the senses. Hearing and sight are probably the most easily fooled when it comes to pattern searches. We see hunched figures in the dark that turn out to be clothing tossed on a chair. We hear footsteps upstairs because that's what the weight of the roof settling on the individual rafters sounds like to people who don't know what a roof settling sounds like. It's very difficult to override the mind when it thinks it has the correct pattern, and that's why many people jump to supernatural conclusions when an assumed pattern doesn't fit the circumstances. Towels don't normally fly, but a towel that's wet on one end (after being used for a shower) has some abnormal physical properties. I don't know if by "rack" you're talking about a shelf or a bar, but I've had a wet towel slide off my towel bar before. If I'd been closer, it might even have snapped me on the butt as the dry end sped up and flew off the top of the bar. The chandelier swinging would only be strange if he actually watched it go from stationary to "aggressively swinging" without taking his eyes off it. Chances are he probably bumped it but didn't realize it, then saw it swinging for seemingly no reason. As for your actual eye-witness account of him failing to recreate the chandelier movement, well.... The cable guy story is just verification that something sounds like footsteps in the upstairs part of the house. When I was young, I was in bed and I heard footsteps on the walk below my window. When I got up and pulled the curtain aside to see who it was, not only was there no one there, but the footsteps stopped like they knew I was watching. Each time I went back to bed, a few moments later the footsteps started again, and the same thing happened when I went to check. It drove me crazy until I realized that the footsteps didn't fade or strengthen like they would if it was someone walking up my front steps. It was like someone in high heels was just marching slowly in place below my window. And that made no sense so I started thinking of other explanations. Eventually I found that the breeze from my open window was making the plastic drape pull click against the wall. When I pulled the curtain back to look out, it stopped the clicking.

Why are you interested? Do you think it's made any differently than other drugs? Have there been any explosive results from users?

Science doesn't have to be intuitive, but it rarely has to contort itself so tortuously to fit an argument. I don't think you understand what Einstein means in this context. Science isn't about proof, it's about the most likely explanations based on available evidence. It's easy to show something is false by even one bit of true evidence that falsifies it, but we don't WANT to say something is MOST TRUE, beyond a shadow of a doubt, because then we stop looking for any other answers, and that defeats the purpose of the methodology.

I define faith as the absolute conviction in something that has no evidence to support its existence. That's what everyone of faith I've ever met tells me, that they believe in God with all their heart and soul, despite the fact that no one can prove His existence. To me, that's believing something that fits the occasion, a need for something beyond what we can observe as reality. Hope is more of a reality-based part of my belief system. I can hope that consciousness lives on after the death of the body, but it's not going to make me live my real life any differently. Hope gives me all the warm fuzzies that some people gain from their faith, but it's not trying to pretend that I actually KNOW something that I can't. Trust is the best part of my belief system. It's based on the best available explanation of various phenomena. It's NOT believing in anything that fits the occasion, it's the exact opposite. Trust is having firm ground to walk on and not pretending that all that silly leaping makes me somehow a smarter, better person than everyone else.

Sounds like a manufactured controversy. I don't agree that we're supposed to chew through this because you're confused.

I think it was an attempt to make the question look stupid that backfired on the person who answered. Before I wrote, "These are serious goals, please", I was worried someone would post a thread-killer like that, and then I wondered if writing that would actually attract someone to do it. I should have left it alone. Thanks for the serious reply, iNow. Very much what I was hoping for. If no one else responds, you get my write-in vote.

Math is more of the language of science than a science itself. Mathematical proofs can actually be thought of as true, where science deals in theory which, by the nature of the scientific method, can't be thought of in such absolute, certain terms. Theories need to be tested and added to constantly, and using them to make predictions that lead to more understanding, so it thwarts the whole concept to think, "Oh, we've got this one 100%, time to move on!" Certainly, a theory is the best you can get in science, and shouldn't be thought of as "only a theory" (as so many people do these days). A scientific theory represents the most supported explanation available, one that can be trusted because those "doing science" in this way are following the best methodology the human species has ever come up with to seek explanations for how our universe works.

I think the simplest solution is to tap a hole in the center of those disks and thread a machine screw in it (solder the base to seal it for suction). Make sure the screw is long enough to give you something to grab onto with your fingers. Alternatively, I wonder if you could use a small engine valve to do the same thing. They're probably going to run about $3-$10 each, but would be sturdier and can be used right out of the box. If you want to go really cheap, an 11/16" ash dowel rod would fit the dime-sized holes and could be cut long enough to give you a grip and be light enough not to fall out by themselves. You may need to glue some kind of thin rubber or vinyl disks to them for a good seal.

The neo-conservative movement seems like a more appropriate choice. So many Iraqis in so little time. A very telling non sequitur.

Warning! Warning! Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! Seriously, if you think Da Vinci worked alone, why are you asking for help here? Who is testing your shields? How are you testing them for micrometeor encounters? How are you going to avoid running into satellites and debris in LEO? How will the world feel when you endanger some of the really expensive and hard to maintain stuff in GEO? Determination and drive are great things, but humans didn't get where they are technologically by working alone.

It should be noted that anyone who claims they're going to "prove" anything to you isn't doing science. Math deals in proofs, science deals in theory backed up by supportive evidence to provide the most trustworthy explanations for various phenomena. That's why I trust in the Big Bang Theory. It has the most supportive evidence, and fits well with other cosmological theories, making it the most likely explanation while still being subject to refinement and change. True that evolution has nothing to do with creation, false that it shows how life becomes more complicated. Evolution is the change in allele frequency within a population over time. Many single-celled organisms haven't grown more complicated, also viruses and parasites. And change doesn't have to be more complicated, just better adapted to an environment. Not in any official capacity, since I'm involved in this discussion, but I would advise everyone to stop bringing up evolution in this thread since it's off-topic and will probably get snipped or moved by another Moderator.

So you're using permanent magnets, but need an electromagnet strong enough to do the same job? Is this correct? What holds the disks in place, just the suction? What if you could rig something that would push the disks off the holes, using something like a coin-changer mechanism? I'm not sure if this device slides the coins sideways (the way you'd need it to) or just drops a coin, but there should be something you could use that doesn't involve magnets. A small nail puller would be easier than what you're describing.

What on earth makes you think you're going to get "the answer soon"? What kind of "proof" do you think would convince "the world"? I think we need some rule changes in Religion/Philosophy. There are an AWFUL lot of agenda-oriented people lately who consider creation fun and interesting.

Due to an extremely clever viral video, your name gets written in on enough ballots to win the US presidency ( I know!). It was a total fluke, but now you're in and The People realize they know nothing about your plans for your administration (if you're ineligible for the US presidency, assume the same scenario but you're the Chief of Staff for the new president and are actually the "power behind the throne"). Congress is going to be very difficult for you to work with. However, you do have enough political capital (because of the way you were elected) to get three major goals accomplished in the four years you've got. These are serious goals, please. There may be many other things you can try to accomplish, but these three are practically guaranteed to happen. Choose from Economy, Education, Energy, Environment, Foreign Policy, Health Care, National Security, Political Reform, Social Security, Taxes or something else you feel needs changing. How would you invest the political capital you have? What would your goals be, in 1-2-3 order?

QFT. If you make it about fighting religion, you create martyrs that cause ten to spring up for every one you destroy. Even if you could destroy everyone in an entire region, someone on the other side of the globe will see it as an injustice and rally yet more followers. Their is no way to end the war on terror by military means. It's an ideological war that needs to be won with better ideas. The only way to win is to educate them. Every parent wants their child to have a better chance than they did, so I'd start with the children. Infant mortality rates in these areas is horrible. Start small, teach mothers about hygiene and how to keep water and wounds clean. When that works for them, they'll be more amenable to further learning.

Can you give some examples of the kind of posts that prompted your anxiety?

I've been guilty of Here-sy for some time now. I've often wondered why people spend so much time on unanswerable questions like "Why are we here?", but it seems clear that you need to ask the question enough times to finally realize that it really doesn't matter why. You just accept that you're here so you can start focusing on what you're going to do about it. Much more meaningful and rewarding for everyone.