Phi for All

! Moderator Note astrocat5, if we lock a thread it displays a lock at the bottom and nobody can post at all in it. We have no need to artificially block anyone from viewing or posting to an open thread. It is quite common for a thread's visitors to drop off when it reaches a certain size. People start to read, realize you aren't willing to show any evidence and stop coming to waste time with four pages of hand-waving. Also, this is NOT a democracy, it's a privately owned science discussion forum, one with rules you agreed to when you joined. You do NOT have the freedom of speech to post anything you want here. Finally, since you have not responded to requests to back up your assertions with any observable evidence, much less attempt to offer a better explanation than current theory, your idea has become speculative only. I'm moving the thread to Speculations (which may actually revive your audience) so please read the sitcky notes regarding speculative threads. There is no need to respond to this modnote.

New information for an old topic: http://news.yahoo.com/japanese-company-proposes-space-elevator-2050-215100396.html We could see this in our lifetime. Unless some kid pushes the buttons for EVERY floor. That could take forever.

Predictions need to be testable now. "In some point into the future 'etheric eye' will evolve" is too vague to be a meaningful prediction. He needs to be able to show that, if he applies sacred geometry to a phenomena, it will result in x, and his tests need to be reproducible by others, and further his idea needs to explain things better than current understanding. Are any of his claims even falsifiable?

You reach a point of diminishing returns. Charge too much and the black market undercuts the price, smuggling to avoid the taxes. Prohibit the substance and the black market will charge what it can get. And we really should be talking about marijuana in this thread. Sorry if I misunderstood, Freddy. It just sounded like you were assuming the price increase behavior modification was only positive. Wizard's Second Rule: "The greatest harm can result from the best intentions." - Terry Goodkind I don't drink at all and I still consider that to be an affront to civil liberties. Can't we just tax it to cover the costs to the country? I'd like that better than trying to figure out which personal freedoms were "less important" than others. Or taxing everyone for problems caused by an identifiable segment of the population. Do you think I should be taxed even though I don't drink? Is this an area where my money should be used because it means a "reduction in harm to society overall"? Really, Oz has no laws already in place for contributing to the delinquency of a minor?! For child abuse?! I'm sure you do. Wouldn't it be easier and more elegant to simply strengthen these existing laws?

I have to try this since it's been bugging me whether you're a bot or just suffering from bad translation. If I get another robot answer then we'll know for sure. "Rigid with racism performance"? Does this mean they were focused on winning for their country? Why were the hurdle races different? Have you watched a lot of Olympic games? You bring up too many concepts here. Fair and unbiased practices but the Indians are boycotting the games because somehow the "conditions" are easy? How could they possibly make races easy? Slant the tracks downhill in all directions? Fill the pools with dense gas instead of water? Where on Earth did you get the midgets? Since everyone is still running the same 75m and high-jumping the same five feet, why is this deluded? Isn't it a good thing to be able to see more of the arena? If you don't think so, you should watch the games on your cell phone.

Mainstream scientists don't "prove" things to be true. They reach logical conclusions as to the most likely explanations, explanations supported by the most evidence. This allows them to make predictions which they can also test to check their conclusions.

What a Flip answer!

So increasing the price actually turned the teens towards harder liquor, and allowed them to control how much alcohol was mixed with their "soft" drink. The decreased affordability actually modified their behavior by giving them motivation to drink stronger liquor, without the restraint pre-mixed alcopops imposes. Yes, and probably more often in a very detrimental way. Shame on you for forgetting all the education that was also made available. With the last big push against smoking, people became aware for the first time that manufacturers were actually adding addictive substances into the product. It suddenly became more than just "it's bad for you". Punish everyone for a problem with teens? That might not be a popular choice, nor one that upholds individual rights. Again, you're skewing the demographics, this time to include illegal behavior on the part of parents. Look, the idea obviously failed in this instance. It's a bad argument by itself, you should drop it. And that's why I said, very carefully, that I wouldn't sanction privatization without severe restrictions. But I agree that that's one slippery slope you can always count on to start sliding down. You'd have to constantly watchdog those corporations to make sure they didn't lobby to reduced those restrictions. And you'd have to start by killing the concept of corporate personhood, which I hope the American people will shortly realize is killing our country. Actually, I'd rather see us take a lesson from Portugal. Take ALL the funds from the War on Drugs and use it for education and treatment. Don't legalize them, but stop jailing people whose only crime is having/using a personal stash of drugs. Education is the best solution for almost everything, and in this case it's the one that has the best chance of minimizing the dangers and the numbers of users as well as protecting individual rights.

You'll have to go through betta-testing first.

! Moderator Note Last warning, Mr God. Trolling is against our rules. Another post like this and your account will be suspended.

The government doesn't need to monopolize anything. They can award charters to safely manufacture and distribute, and simply tax and regulate accordingly. I'm not sure I'd approve of this without some severe restrictions on normal market processes, like a curb or ban on advertising. A large portion of the taxes should be set aside for education, obviating much of the need for more expensive treatment. Avenues for rehabilitation are actually already in place, with courts requiring it for public intoxication offenses. If they're smart they do. I just read where General Electric paid lobbyists $84M to get Congress to approve $8.4B in tax breaks for them. Lobbying can bring a greater return on investment than selling your actual products.

! Moderator Note max13, this is a discussion forum. You have started seven threads and haven't responded to questions asked of you in ANY of them. If you don't respond in the next three days, we'll have to assume, since most of your threads mention movies, that you have some kind of commercial agenda. Since this is against the rules you agreed to when you joined, your threads will be deleted at that time.

How about, "Joe is First Cause, a dishonest person who treats trolling as an artistic endeavor". Would that solve the puzzle?

Now I recognize his picture. michel fled France and moved to Greece to avoid the Sûreté's charges of identity theft.

Oh, that's just wonderful, michel. You have absolutely convinced me that the last thing in the world I want is someone like you collating my personal info to use against me.

First thing to do is a cost-benefit analysis. It's pretty expensive to get a rocket off-planet, especially one filled with heavy materials. Edit: Ooops. Cross-posted with DrRocket.

Most of the experts do not share your assumption. You assume there would be no alcohol available to drivers during a prohibition. Historically, the alcohol continued to flow, without regulation for purity or safety. There are more cars nowadays, and also lots more bathtubs for gin. Blind much? Your demographic is skewed. Teenagers have limited funds. And do you know for a fact that your Ozteens didn't switch to something harder when the price of alcopops made alternatives more attractive?

Well, it's possible for sperm to make it past an intact hymen, making pregnancy without intercourse possible, if not very probable. The question becomes "Is a woman a virgin if she allows a man to ejaculate into her vaginal opening without full penetration or breaking of the hymen?" There's probably no shortage of men who's excitement peaks just as they reach the gates.

Oh, come on michel, why should swansont have to do that with every newcomer? And it obviously wouldn't have worked in this case since JiggerJ doesn't "care if [swansont's] the pope". And I know it's hard for you to understand because you probably aren't in this situation, but some people, staff included, could face an either/or challenge if their employers find out how much they post here. Please respect the need for anonymity that might be compromised if too much personal information is given. You should understand, given that you had pointed out that whacko who threatened Obama was out of jail and posting here (that WAS you, iirc?).

NO. It's a science discussion forum with rules, rules you agreed to when you joined. Chatting is much less formal, and we have a chat room available as an informal part of the discussion forum. This is NOT a chat forum. I can appreciate that you may be having a bad day. It must be the worst day EVER for you personally attack one of the most respected, prolific and knowledgeable members on the entire site. That would have been rude, AT WORK. No one at your work showed up there with the express intent of learning about science. Unlike, say, HERE. You are so far off base here that you're running into cars in the stadium parking lot. If you weren't just expressing an opinion, I'd say you owe swansont an apology.

But don't read anything interesting. Economics textbooks are good for falling asleep. Also avoid reading anything that will make you angry or bewildered. Anything written by Republicans will keep you up gnashing your teeth and coughing due to the smoke coming from your ears.

Fortified walls were made superfluous by many advancements, the biggest of which was probably armed aircraft. But constant expansion was a factor too. Cities grow, so the outer walls became inner walls, and more outer walls were needed. You reach a point of diminishing returns. Strong walls don't keep everything out.

I'm guessing bot now. These are pointless threads.

I can imagine any group who would seriously want to compromise the liberty of Americans would just love it if citizens started protecting their rights with their closet guns. Citizens + guns + media spin = terrorists threatening national security.

Are you serious? You think stopping your heart is something nature would ever find beneficial? You think killing yourself is a superpower?