Phi for All

I think the consumers of the cheapest goods are coerced, in a way, to think that paying a lower price now means savings overall. It's quite possibly the lack of education at that level and all the other consumer pressures faced these days coupled with the effectiveness of modern advertising on that part of the market and the needs of business to keep people buying the same goods over and over that make it an exploitative affront to freedom to me. It's reminiscent of the old company store model, or making the minimum payment on credit debt; it's designed to keep the consumer slaved to the marketers. It's especially insidious at the lower end, where there doesn't seem to be any alternative. The best price is the best value, right? And I blame the lack of education on those who have kept public education underfunded and then point to its failure as a sign of government ineptitude. It's been a very effective strategy for a lot of things, and every day we see less effective use of tax revenues for the things the People care most about while the same corporate/political machinations insure that more and more of those revenues go to support already successful businesses. It's hard for me not to see this as a freedom issue when I feel the country is being bled dry as regular folk are strapped down tighter and tighter by the effects of these circumstances.

That's why my argument was, "if the same goods at twice the price last four times longer, we'd double our ability to purchase, or cut our costs in half depending on your perspective". I qualified that the goods I was describing were higher quality. Of course, the man of straw is much easier to knock down. Where exactly? It seems clear I'm saying our government should be more worthy of our trust, not that they currently are. In fact, while I'm a registered Democrat, I'm becoming more and more convinced that both major parties are working for those who are paying for their own special interests, and I trust neither party. In much the same way, Clinton met with distrust even on something a large amount of people wanted, just because the presidents of the 12 previous years had eroded public trust by not fulfilling on their own promises ("Read my lips, no new taxes"). I must have phrased it badly to elicit this response. Respecting people in public office who are worthy of our trust should be the norm, not respecting them because they hold public office. Of course the motivations of lobbyists and politicians are different than regular folk. We simply need to make it clear that the regular folk aren't going to stand for any more corruption and misuse of tax revenues. Politicians can't enact laws favorable only to special interests if we don't vote for them and put them in jail. Simple, but not easy. There were people, after the Clinton years, who wanted to do away with any kind of retribution against politicians, for fear it would be a disincentive for those interested in holding public office. They actually tried to get away with that. IIRC, I think Bush was actually able to give himself that kind if retroactive immunity. I think we need to redefine what journalism means in this country. Trust in news reporting especially should be a priority. I would also revise the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I think a corporation that owns a media outlet should not also own other types of businesses. AFAIK, no one is restricting anyone from building private roads for people who can afford them, so they are not less free. And I think the only thing that stops publicly funded mass transit from being better is the private interests that oppose most things they will never use. And Amtrak was a Nixon-era scheme to provide manufactured mismanagement so taxpayer funds could be diverted to private interests. It was designed to fail so it could be dismantled and sold piecemeal to private companies. It's a wonder it's survived this long.

Back in the late 80s, I sold a line of household halon extinguishers, and iirc it was virgin halon. The gas was extremely effective on kitchen grease fires (personal experience) and automotive fires (also from personal experience, though not on my own car). It was also good for clearing a path to escape flames from a house fire, provided you could hold your breath long enough to pass through. That got banned here along with other CFC products. I don't think Halon 1301 is in use either, now that I check on commercial sites. They have a product called Halon 1211 which seems to be sold commercially here in the states. Inigo, I still can't see even nitrogen being able to put out fires involving wood or other materials that can smolder. If your building can reintroduce oxygen after the flames have been put out by the nitrogen cannister, the fire can still start again from smoldering embers. Does the nitrogen have a way to cool the flammable materials in a large building fire?

I'm not sure where I was talking about giving anybody "more" power. I think the idea of vigilance is to stay on top of elected officials, and make sure your means of doing so are clear and accessible (like not giving corporations who buy politicians control of the media). Vigilance should also mean holding their feet to the fire when they prove themselves to be criminals. Allowing them to remain in office or pardoning them for crimes committed while in office just encourage more of the same. Where is the middle man when I drive on public roads? Do you really think I would have the freedom to drive as much as I do now if I had to pay private companies for the privilege of driving on the roads they own? Do you think it would cost me the same amount as the small percentage of my taxes that build the roads now? I'm not giving control for these things to the government to shirk any responsibilities. I'm just not qualified to make the best choices in so many varied areas, nor do I wish to take the time to become qualified. It's not only cheaper to pay into a tax pool with fellow citizens, it gives us all access to those who have the qualifications to best use those funds. That's one of the best benefits to a society like ours, we can have specialists who focus on areas where it's not feasible for everyone to be so skilled. And we can have other specialists whose job is to make sure all the other specialists are doing the right things. Eventually, all those people are governed by leaders we elect to oversee it all. Vigilance is then needed in fewer areas, but it's needed on an ongoing, passionate basis. It's just hard to remain vigilant when our eyes are focused on only ourselves and our immediate families. We reap the benefits of society by promoting the general welfare of that society.

If the concerns are all about the effects of cannibus, then why not legalize hemp? You can't get high off industrial hemp, no way, no how. There are easy ways to detect between the two, even from the air. If the whole thing isn't manipulation of a competing product to several major markets, then why classify it all as a Schedule 1 drug? The kind of hemp that's used to make paper (instead of slow-growth trees), textiles (instead of environmentally harsh and weaker cotton), and oil (instead of hard to find, environmentally harsh, non-sustainable fossil fuels) just can't be called a drug by any stretch of the imagination, yet it's illegal. Why is keeping hemp illegal a recognizable position, especially to a free-market-thinking kind of guy like you? Not "everything" has such insane and feeble reasoning behind it. Industrial hemp is easily distinguishable from cannibus, both in what parts are cultivated and the way it's grown. There are no legitimate reasons to classify hemp the same way as cannibus, and no legitimate reasons to classify cannibus the same way as heroin. There are legitimate business reasons to manipulate the laws to deny a competing material to take market share away from your existing businesses though. But none that don't give lie to the idea of fair free market values. Hemp is superior to cotton for many purposes, but is not allowed to compete. Is that a free market model you support? Hemp is far superior to trees for making paper, but is not allowed to compete. I forget, what were those free market values again? The list of manipulators is huge, so let me just ask you this. Let's say you came up with a material that was going to revolutionize a few markets. It's perfectly safe and superior to many existing materials, and yours is cheaper and more durable. Lobbyists paid for by your competitors spend a ton of money and get the government to ban your material because with some major modifications it can be used as a substitute for one of the ingredients in methamphetamine manufacturing. The lobbyists blast the media with reports that link your product to drug use and public support for a new law is manipulated (do you have a better word for it?) and your great new breakthrough will not be allowed to compete, based on a fabric of outright lies and supposition. How do you feel about the manipulation theory now?

I'm sure I could spend a short paragraph on all the criminals in US politics as well, but I'm not sure I could find as many news stories about them since we aren't as transparent about outing our political crooks as the French are. We pardon our presidents and have the Patriot Act and all that to make some of those crimes legal, so some people can claim we're somehow more righteous. I disagree vehemently about the argument being disingenuous. It seems absolutely logical to me that I would have a lot less time and money if I had to arrange to pay to drive on private roads, rent books, swim at a pool, play at a park, join a militia to protect my city, educate my child, help supplement the lives of the least wage earners in my community, have major firefighting equipment on hand, keep tabs on local business pollution, make sure the people who make the food I eat aren't adding things that help them but hurt me, and all the myriad other things my taxes pay for now.

Consumers always have a choice to buy whatever quality of products they find on the market. It seems to me, though, that the trend towards seemingly cheap, easily replaceable goods has stifled our economic freedom in many ways. We get lulled into looking for low price because our money is limited, but if the same goods at twice the price last four times longer, we'd double our ability to purchase, or cut our costs in half depending on your perspective. Cheap goods handcuff us to an economic treadmill, constantly spending to replace cheap goods and that's part of why I feel tangled hair dryer cords affect our definition of freedom. When people have no confidence that their perspective is properly represented by the leaders that govern their society, it affects the way they treat the other members of that society. In 1992, support for universal health care was at 44% with only 24% in direct opposition, but overall public trust in the government was only at 29% when Clinton took office and his plan for universal health care failed miserably. We had a chance to significantly help promote the general welfare but turned it down, basically because we didn't believe our leaders. Our lack of trust, our freedom to expect our leaders to commit to promoting our general welfare, seriously affects the way we treat each other in our society. I contend that if we weren't shackled by our distrust of government, we'd have less to worry about personally and might treat each other more cordially as I'm sure we'd all prefer. Who doesn't prefer cordial to combative generally? You're too kind, sir. It was probably more like "Phi got hold of a computer for the first time in a week and had a few minutes to babble about his experience". But let's go with what you said.

I think Halon 1301 is still the best gas to use for certain fires. When you have large computer facilities and are able to both evacuate the personnel quickly and control the release/recycle of the gas, Halon 1301 will stop electrical fires without further damaging the delicate systems. Probably the next best use is for automobile engine fires. Almost every other extinguisher requires you to lift the hood, adding oxygen to the engine compartment. Halon 1301 can be sprayed right into the front grill (perhaps a nitrogen system in the engine compartment which can be triggered from the dashboard could replace this use). But as I said before, it's not so great with anything that smolders and can relight when oxygen returns to the area. And its environmental damage does preclude it from being used as a general firefighting solution where you can't contain or recapture the gas.

The way you phrased the first question demands an automatic "Yes". There ARE people who view the world this way, so what other answer could there be? But then you ask, "Are we nothing more than Lemmings looking for a cliff to leap from?", which is a generalization, to which the obvious answer is "No, not all of us". If these questions are not meant as a venue to spit venom, why are they so loaded towards certain obvious answers? Also, your first question generalizes "life and their surroundings". I think there are plenty of people who view certain aspects of their lives and their surroundings with a jaundiced eye, perhaps things like politics or their job, but not other aspects, such as science or their families. Your questions seem to cull specific circumstances and individuals and conflate them with society as a whole, and that makes it hard to answer meaningfully.

I think our people have been poorly educated by a system that's been systematically strangled in terms of funding for the last 30 years, and this has allowed them to be manipulated into believing they have no hope of "fighting city hall". We take it for granted that politicians will lie, we just assume that corruption is the way of the world. But yes, I think we are smart enough to see that we need to start getting more involved, that we need to stop this slide into apathy and acceptance we've been on. We can be vigilant, we need to be vigilant, and we need to put the capital P back in People. Freer? Are people in a democracy freer if they have more of a say in their political process through more specific representation? Are they freer if they keep a more vigilant watch on the promises made by their leaders, always ready to end a term of office if the elected representative fails to do the job they claimed they would? Are they freer if their expectations are met and their tax resources are used transparently and judiciously? More substantial? Obviously I can't observe anything like that on a national level in just a week. And Paris is a large cultural hub for the entire world, so it would be like asking if people in New York City do more substantial things with their lives than people from Ottumwa. Making the most of your life is an individual aspiration, so I couldn't claim to know if people in Europe do so because of their political systems, but I can tell you this: I think the average person has a better chance at the life they want if their leaders are working for the general welfare of the country instead of just the welfare of the guys who own the most.

To me, it's not the focus on money that's offensive. It's the phoney-baloney anti-drug stance that will quickly change when there's more money to be made by legalizing hemp. It's more than just flip-flopping, it's politicians and businessmen exploiting their own integrity for profit. And I'm probably more disgusted by the American people for falling for such dishonest manipulation. There are many good views out there, or at least good parts of those views, which need representation but will never get it honestly with our current two-party system. I wonder how the Libertarians view the Republican stance supporting capital punishment for drug trafficking?

Absolutely great shows, both. I haven't started season 4 of BB yet, can't wait. And I've read all the available Song of Ice and Fire books, and I have to say that Game of Thrones is, hands down, THE BEST screenplay from a book series, EVER. And yes, Tyrion is fabulous, Dinklage is superb at being Tyrion, and I will personally drive back down to Santa Fe and spank Martin if he takes as long as the last time to finish the next book (yes, George, that was me pawing through your trash five years ago, hoping for a little glimpse of you dancing with dragons).

The gas you need is bromotrifluoromethane, also known as Halon 1301. Great for putting out fires when you don't want foam or sand or water all over everything. Not great for wood or things that smolder though, since these fires can relight when oxygen is reintroduced. I don't think you'd really need a grenade, though. Just a good-sized canister with a thermostat that releases the halon when it gets hot enough.

So no public roads, parks, libraries? Those should all be privately owned, in your opinion? You see public works and publicly controlled/available resources as impediments to progress? Really? How so?

Actually, any strong emotion, not just anger, increases the heart rate and floods the body with physiological responses that inhibit fine motor control functions. I think one can have a level of anger that is manageable and actually beneficial if it brings on strong convictions and focused responses, as long as those convictions and responses are aimed in a beneficial direction. This is where most anger misses the mark, imo. It's not properly focused. And we don't always recognize where our anger stems from. I think a lot of anger is misplaced, coming from one source but applied to another. Yesterday, I was driving on a street with a 40mph limit, the day was beautiful, I was in a good mood, there were cars in front of me and cars behind me. I don't like following too closely and I probably left a bit too much room between me and the car in front of me, but for whatever reason I suddenly became aware that the car behind me was right on my bumper, less than a car length away, the driver practically frothing at the mouth. I looked down, realized I was going about 36mph, but there was only about four car lengths between me and the car in front of me. I sped up a bit and shortly we came to a right turn lane which the driver behind me turned into and sped past me. The man was red in the face, mouthing what I can only assume were obscenities, and he gave me the finger as he passed. I thought about it afterwards. I couldn't have gone too much faster because of the cars in front of me. I could have left less room between me and the next car, giving the illusion of more speed, but I feel it's unnecessarily dangerous and futile. I could have reacted quicker and sped up at a higher rate when the man behind me expressed his anger but I frankly thought he was being overly aggressive, I don't like to encourage tailgating as a means to encourage faster speeds and I've gotten used to conserving my fuel. I thought it was an incredible waste of good anger. If he was late for something, he had many opportunities to pass me, so I ruled that out. What had I really cost the man, maybe a dozen seconds? In the few minutes of thought I gave it, I concluded that the man was either angry about something else and just taking it out on me, or he thought I was purposely slowing down to vex him because he was following too closely (and I really only noticed him when he came right up on my bumper the one time). Either way, his anger was misplaced and improperly focused. I think there is a lot of that going on these days.

I agree, in terms of existing physiology. But where would the selective pressure come from in our present ecosystems? Losing our arms would be horrible for humans unless we could keep hands at the ends of them, and then I'm not sure the wing parts would be effective. Being able to fly is no real advantage to advanced tool users.

! Moderator Note Personal attacks are against the rules you agreed to when you joined this forum. Attack the ideas instead.

Technically, while we are speculating, we're still trying to use accepted evolutionary principles to do it, so the thread could stay in the mainstream fora. However, geologically we went completely off the charts with the flood that covers all the land scenario. We'd never have enough water to do that. I said flyers tend to be lighter weight-wise, with hollow bones and muscles meant mainly for flight. And with your flood scenario, I meant that you removed much of our diet when you removed the land, so we'd most likely tend towards smaller bodies requiring less food to survive. Of course, being omnivores, we'd get hit pretty hard trying to live only on what we could find in the oceans. There were birdlike creatures among the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs and birds share a lot of physiology and behavior. Catastrophic events tend to change environments and cause some marked evolutionary changes, but I don't necessarily think a catastrophe was required in order to force the changes into the birds we see today.

How is it a "sound" business practice to charge more for women just because it's easy to make people think it's justified? If you remove the obstetric costs, women are still being charged more for health insurance for the same coverage. The reasons given by the insurance carriers have been proven to be bullshit (like pointing to cities with high instances of domestic violence and then applying that to women everywhere). That's why the Affordable Care Act is not allowing the exploitation to continue. Only if you as a consumer and a citizen allow it. And it looks like, even though you seemed to object to the higher costs before I commented, you are now convinced the insurance companies are justified in continuing the practice. I don't mean this as a personal attack, but it seems to me like on the one hand you defend the free market, and on the other you think it's acceptable to allow discrimination if standing up for your wife means paying more. Aren't you the guy who asked, "What gives?"

Even when you remove obstetric care from the equation, gender rating against women shows that women are charged more for medical insurance than their male counterparts across the board using some really stupid metrics, like increased likelihood of domestic violence. In many states, it's not uncommon for a non-smoking woman to pay significantly more than a man who smokes. No matter what we'd like to think, there doesn't seem to be any justifiable reasons other than greed. The Affordable Care Act has banned the practice of gender rating.

In that scenario, I think the first mutation that would gain from natural selection would be webbed fingers and toes. More successful swimmers would get more food, become stronger and reproduce more successfully. After that, perhaps some kind of webbing that stretches between arms and legs, like a flying squirrel, may give both added swimming control and a limited gliding ability. Again, we have no examples of a six-legged vertebrate, so growing an extra set of limbs that may get modified into wings is an unrealistic stretch. Remember, wings don't evolve by themselves, they're modified legs. We'd require a completely different skeletal and musculature model to warrant having six limbs. This would require extra growth and in your flood scenario you just reduced a huge portion of our food supply. I think the tendency would be towards smaller humans.

Wings, being modified legs, require a whole set of musculature all to themselves. And avian creatures are much lighter weight with lighter bone structure than humans. All that aside, there really isn't any selective pressure for us to evolve wings. We just don't need them, no matter how cool it would be to fly. There is nothing about our current ecology that would make wings desirable. We'd have to change everything about the way we live in order for wings to make us more successful at survival.

When you say "angel-like", do you mean arms turning into wings or do you mean wings sprouting up from somewhere towards the back, independent of the arms? Arms and wings are modified legs, essentially, so we'd somehow have to grow two new "legs" to be modified by selection into wings. Although I would imagine the selective pressures would be more likely to give us a second set of arms, given our current environments. I don't think there are any examples of a six-legged vertebrate.

Confrontation is inevitable. Violence is not.

I'm way too busy studying for my 32nd degree as a Mason to be an Illuminati.