Phi for All

Piloerection works better if the hair is longer, which it used to be on humans. When the longer hairs stand on end, they trap air which is warmed by the skin to provide an insulative barrier. It's the same effect as being colder in pants that fit tightly to your skin as opposed to pants that are looser and allow for air to be trapped and warmed by the body, from what I've heard.

For liability reasons, at least in my state in the US, no. They won't let you remove a potentially explosive part on their property since you aren't covered by their insurance. If the junkyard is licensed to remove it and allowed to sell it, it will probably won't be cheap (but cheaper than new, of course). Many US states make it illegal to sell airbags that haven't been rebuilt to certain specifications. They assume you want it to put in a vehicle, not get the chemicals out of it. You could let them know that's what you want it for, and then you would be subject to a whole different set of laws. I think they purposely hide them from people who can't figure out how to find them.

! Moderator Note The posts discussing censorship in general have been moved to the Politics section here. Further discussion of censorship by SFN Staff can continue in this thread.

! Moderator Note We're in a bit of a quandary here. If this thread is now discussing censorship in general, and not accusations aimed at SFN staff, the new posts need to be moved to Politics instead of Suggestions, Comments and Support. Most of the currently available staff is involved in the thread, however, and we normally don't like to make moderation decisions if we're involved. Does anyone have a problem with me splitting posts #32-34 off into their own thread in Politics, even though I'm involved in the current thread? ! Moderator Note OK, new topic split off, so if you still want to discuss censorship by the SFN Staff, please do so in the original thread.

! Moderator Note Please, just post your thread once in a single section. Multiple instances makes it very difficult to follow the discussion.

Welcome everyone, we appreciate you choosing SFN as a place to discuss science with fellow humans. Enjoy!

To try and get this thread back on track, I think the Republicans misread the reasons behind their defeat in 2008, like they weren't "Republican" enough after the Bush years to beat Obama. I also think the Republicans have swung way too far right, similar to the way the Dems swung way too far left after losing to Reagan (anyone remember Mondale and then Dukakis?). We're seeing extremism going on here in a big way, but it's not anything new. The extremes should worry us only when, like now, they threaten to have complete control. I wasn't worried about Dennis Kucinich getting the voting age lowered to 16 when I supported his first run for the presidency, since he wouldn't have had control enough in Congress. It should worry us though that some of the radical right could hold all the cards if they win enough Senate seats and also manage to get Romney in as president. I'd hate to see four years of Democratic filibustering and no real progress just to stop the crazy from happening. Obama is enough of a moderate that I wouldn't mind seeing a clean sweep if the Dems manage to win back the House (a very big if). I think we need some change that's big enough to make a difference but not big enough to scare everyone into inaction. I'm leery of whether or not that change is going to come in the areas it really needs to. Both majors are beholden to too much corporate cash to effectively hold on to a middle class neither party seems willing to defend, but is clearly responsible for much of our former glory and prosperity.

No matter how rigid you keep your legs and ankles, I think there is some flexion that helps the feet propel you like paddles. Don't the legs do more to provide stability and lift for the swimmer than propulsion though? The scissoring of the legs pulls you to the surface as your arms try to dig you deeper in the water.

I started to laugh when I heard this one, then I just got madder and madder. To think that someone blessed enough to earn two degrees from an institution like Harvard using it as a hypocritical and derogatory term is beyond crazy. I think it's criminal.

First, we need to change the way we vote. The winner-take-all system of voting practically guarantees there will eventually become two dominant parties that are nearly the same. We desperately need the representational power to vote for our favorite candidates instead of trying to keep our least favorite out of office, since that's a really stupid way to run a democracy.

Something like this might be part of the solution, but what's to stop them from working those cushy jobs supplied by special interest groups in the four years they're waiting to get back into office? Unfortunately, people fear big changes but right now we're equally afraid of NOT making the big changes we know we need. The solution will not be something simple like only term limits. It's going to have to be several major changes to the way we do everything. I keep wondering why we don't look at what is working elsewhere (yes, foreign countries! *gasp*) and tweak it to work here. That seems like such a rational thing to do. Copy the methodology of the country with the best education, and the one with the lowest crime rates, and the other one that has the most fair voting system. If we want to be the best, shouldn't we actually be walking instead of talking?

It would be great if people wanted to be good because it was right instead of because they'll be punished. I don't think that will ever happen with everyone, but it would also be great if morality wasn't based on a faith that can waver and change as its source gets squeezed out of the gaps in our knowledge.

Something tells me that two larger than normal meals would increase the likelihood of higher caloric intake. It seems most of the recent studies support eating smaller more frequent meals to avoid glucose intolerance. There is also some evidence to support alternate day fasting, where you eat normally one day and then eat nothing the next. This seems to increase fat oxidization but may not be a great sustainable diet due to hunger, irritability and energy requirements on the fasting days.

I don't think there has been enough time since we were hunter/gatherers to have evolved very much in that regard. Large meals, on the whole, tend to have more sugars and complex carbs that can spike insulin production, causing us to retain fat, salt and water, and also increase blood pressure and cholesterol levels. That study confirms that the stomach can't hold as much food in one sitting as it does over three meals a day, so you will consume less calories, but that isn't beneficial enough to offset all the other effects of one large meal. You're probably right about a single meal giving the body more time to digest and process the food, but that could also lead to lethargy. Especially once your body gets used to processing the heavier meal, I would imagine it would want you to stop exerting yourself in preference to food processing. Eating a single large meal before bedtime might sound like a good solution, but I think digestion works best if you're not lying down (I've heard this all my life but have no real evidence). At the very least you risk messing up your sleep cycle. I've heard great things about eating very small meals six times a day, but I've never been able to get the hang of it. Three meals a day is probably more of a marketing economy thing than an ideal diet thing, but it does seem easier to schedule in our current society.

Here's one study that claims one big meal is conducive to Type II diabetes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121099/ I also remember hearing that bigger meals raise blood pressure, and that's why the multiple small meals diet has become popular.

*giggle snort* +1

Depends on the context. If I'm snacking, opening the pistachio shells slows me down on calories. If I'm supplementing a low-carb cold meal with some nuts, shelled peanuts are my choice. I like the tastes of both, too close to call. And I agree with Klaynos. Totally different results if you'd have included cashews. Edit: Oh, well then, changed my vote. Gesundheit!

OK, well, now we're talking real censorship. Our ability to reach through your computer to lethally stop you from trolling us is not a matter for public discussion. You must STOP NOW or suffer the consequences.

Yeah, that's not even very clever, you're right. More dishonesty than mere trickery, since he claims it's a scientific experiment.

No, I mean I can't find a home page that has ESP Experiment on it to choose. Not very well arranged.

I've only had one cup of coffee today, so I still can't find it.

Your link takes me to a page with a test that looks like someone else already took it ("I have already removed your card", it says), and I can't get it to reset. There are also no instructions, except the link on the word "try", which takes me to his book page. What am I doing wrong?

Hey, watch it. If you're not careful, you might stall a perfectly good rant with all that reasonableness. Next thing you know, folks might start talking about benevolent dictatorships. There aren't enough swastikas on the internet to protect us from THAT.

The government is a tool. Don't blame the hammer for smashing your finger. Make sure you mean the people who are wielding the tool badly, because there are an awful lot of people out there who want to distrust "the government" no matter who is swinging the hammer. We don't want that, in case we actually do find some trustworthy carpenters who want to build something better. I still say our current corporate models are forcing very savvy people to do harmful things to satisfy their stockholders. When there's more return on investing in lobbying that robs the public trust through subsidies, contracts that bypass fair market practices, legislation that favors only the American mega-corporations that aren't interested in creating American jobs, and re-writing corporate charters to defeat the spirit of prosperity for the US as a whole, then it's clear we've let them go too far. We're letting the mega-corporations take the safety bars and the speed governors off the roller coaster, and we've put them in charge of informing the people of how dangerous the ride has become. And I think Romney/Ryan are more like silicone lubricant on the tracks, and while I wish there was someone to vote for who would at least demand that they uninstall the middle-class ejector seats, at least Obama is trying to make it easier to see the doctor when we hit the pavement. I think the world of Dennis Kucinich for his stand against the Cleveland utilities privatization, his unswerving stance against the war in Iraq and his smart defense of environmental policy. He's actually the farthest left candidate I've ever supported, and I was very disheartened to learn he'd lost his seat through cowardly gerrymandering by the Republican-held Ohio state legislature.