Phi for All

Fair enough. There are many good reasons to choose ABS over polystyrene, and durability is one of them. You say you're casting hobby props, does this mean one-offs for your own use, or are you mass-producing these parts? Injection molding is the way to go with the kind of detail you're showing but production molds get pretty pricey. Short-run molds are cheaper. In either case, the first step is a 3D CAD model of your parts.

If there is a higher power in the universe, this is the reason I can't imagine it being concerned with humans as individuals. Maybe an entity that says to itself one day, "Hey, I have a great idea! Wait, no, hold on, YES! A few simple yet complicated laws to bring order to the chaos, wow, this could work! If I created time as well then it would kind of go on forever, sort of percolating and well, evolving all by itself. Oooh, evolving, evolution, that's also deliciously simple yet complicated! Let's start with a little bit of mass, squeeze it just so, wow, that heats up nicely! I just need some sort of sudden expansion, hmmm, like this and then..." <BANG!> "Not bad! Well, I'll let that cool a bit and look back in on it later. What's next?"

I'll bet you say that to all the pretty forums. We're VERY fiendly.

I've always preferred Miller's Chunking Principle, where you take a "chunk" of information, learn it thoroughly and apply it before moving on to the next "chunk". It's especially effective with computers since most information is imparted by people with an urge to force enormous amounts of information down your throat.

This is a really good point. Especially in the beginning, motives and intentions are really going to be under the microscope. The early phases will be critical to the overall success and this is where the tone is set and people will be paying the most attention. If the earliest drafters can show their best intentions at that point, others are more likely to sign on, if only to make sure their common ground is fairly represented. It must be clear that no one is being yanked onto a new set of tracks, but rather that all people deserve to flourish in their pursuit of life.

Please define and describe "hobby props". Why ABS? Is there a reason you need such a tough and costly plastic? Polystyrene is half the price and with the small parts it's got plenty of strength.

Are you kidding? All it took to turn a good size portion of people against the Occupy Wall Street protesters was to imply that they were littering the park they used as their base. As soon as the peaceful protesters became dirty, filthy, law-breaking litterers, there wasn't as much of an outcry when the police got rough with them on the Brooklyn Bridge. Spinning the story to get the protesters away from your Burger King or Burlington Coat Factory store front is MUCH easier when you also own all the Clear Channel radio stations. You could probably even get the American public behind invading a sovereign nation if you paint the protesters as terrorists.

Supplic-ants.

Googling "Dome of Rock model", I got this: http://commons.wikim...l_by_Schick.JPG I like this one too: http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/02/20/us-palestinians-israel-shrine-idUSL2046161620070220 Possibly painted foamboard and a styrofoam dome?

I already mentioned how our attempts at foreign aid help US more than the countries we're trying to aid. I already mentioned how our subsidy programs do little to encourage innovation and instead help business sectors (that are already doing well) to do extremely well at taxpayer expense. The US has a worldwide reputation of manipulation and greed, of using our military to unfairly advance our industries. We consider ourselves a great country but our intentions are suspected by virtually everyone but ourselves. We have the potential to end poverty, hunger, war and disease but we seem reluctant because it's so profitable for us. We have a populous that I'm really very proud of in most ways, but we're led by representatives we KNOW are corrupt, voted in by a system we KNOW is flawed. Our military troops are the best in the world, yet they're ultimately led by the same special-interest oriented people who continue to lie to get elected. We have an enviable economic range of lifestyles but we spend far more for healthcare with similar or worse results than many poorer countries. I'm not against people amassing wealth, but I have a moral problem with our species when some people starve to death because we raise the price of corn to make inefficient gas additives, while other people need a shadow yacht to trail behind their main yacht so their helicopter doesn't disturb them when they're lounging at poolside. Do people really have to starve so others can have such luxury? Why does the poverty rate in the US NOT diminish over time if we're making as much progress as people think?

I think many people who are relatively content with their lifestyles might interpret a global government as a great deal of change for the worse. Or perhaps some in more economically advantaged countries view any kind of globalization as necessarily downgrading them to equalize the world's occupants. I don't see globalization as making everyone the same. A global Constitution should simply be a framework for allowing countries to accept the fact that there are some things that affect humanity as a whole, to prepare for global eventualities on an equal basis and to devote a certain portion of their national resources towards humans as a species.

I think you're imposing today's conditions on a constitution that is probably many years distant. I know you're playing devil's advocate, but now you're simply saying it won't work rather than considering how it might work. Rather a special case though, one that resulted from a reinterpretation of what constituted being a man (human) with equal rights. The lesson was learned when the reinterpretation pertained to women several decades later. I feel the US government has gotten out of hand. I hope it can be corrected peacefully, but I think correction needs to be a viable option the people must ALWAYS have whether a government is national or global. Correction was devastating to Gaddafi, but not to Libya. Why would correcting a world government have to be devastating for the world?

If a nation had agreed to a certain global law and to be governed by them all, why would that nation break the law and risk global reprisal? Your argument sounds more like the laws were imposed upon the country in question, rather than ratified by them. What would a state in the US do if they felt the federal government had become corrupt? Do you think they would leap to waging war? Again, if the benefits are large enough, why would any country want to jeopardize a global accord?

! Moderator Note This thread is about the correlation of religion with poverty. Assertions on the Bible's accuracy or "proof" of an afterlife are off-topic to this discussion. Feel free to start another thread, or if you wish, I can move this post to start such a thread. Please respect the topic and don't hijack it for other purposes. Response to this warning is unnecessary.

I don't see it as broadening our Constitution so much as hammering out something that could act as a framework for a beginning global accord. There ARE some things that are universally meaningful to everyone on the planet and it's time we started moving in a concerted direction with regards to those things. We all need access to food, drinking water, energy, medicines and clean air. In a world with our abundance, I'm always horrified to think about the millions who starve to death every time we raise the price of corn in the US so we can make ethanol for our cars.

! Moderator Note Ideas like this (we don't call them theories until they've been thoroughly reviewed ), which challenge accepted science and use terminology which has yet to be defined, must start out in the Speculations section, purely so someone who is studying for their physics exam doesn't read this as accepted theory. It is NOT intended to punish you or your idea in any way. It's just our policy. Moved from Modern and Theoretical Physics to Speculations.

For instance. OK, you'll be exempt. We have the whole program calculated so there ARE no benefits, so your deal sounds good.

Other might equal "I'm interested in SFN merchandise that I get by winning the new Post-of-the-Month contest".

You mean giving countries money to get them to join? That sounds weak and unsustainable to me. And if you give one country money they'll all want money. When you stop do they drop out? I was thinking more about peace for one thing. Remove the threat of any member country taking up arms against another member. Alliance against any non-member threats might even make North Korea consider joining the real world. Less trade restrictions, of course. Perhaps some travel sanctions on a per country basis. Some kind of treaty on how we deal with satellites and space debris would be great. Manufacturing standards would help cut costs enormously, like having standardized units for all machine parts, measurements, fasteners and fixtures (yes, the US should embrace the metric system! Gasp!). Every member country assigns a percentage of resources to a group of specialists who would work towards a global sustainable energy plan. Human rights would need to be addressed. Ethnic groups that find it impossible to live in the same country peacefully will be the big stumbling block there. Just tossing out some ideas. Haven't had coffee yet.

When you say things like: ... it tells us you don't really care how much evidence we have to support our position. This then stops becoming a discussion, and this IS a discussion forum. There are plenty of ways you can be a Christian and still study all the evidence that supports the Big Bang theory, or Evolution. Taking every single word in the Bible LITERALLY, without interpreting it from the point of view of its millennia-old writers, makes it infinitely harder to understand how you can appreciate scientific evidence and maintain your faith at the same time. MOST Christians are NOT creationists.

It sounds like you don't read ANY links, including your own: From your link: Would YOU go searching for the ark and not bring any cameras?

He doesn't need to eat or drink but he has to gargle a lot?! It's not uncommon to be able to go more than a week without food, and it sounds like all the studies done on this guy don't go past about 10 days. And if he doesn't go to the bathroom or work up a sweat, why does he need to bathe often? There are ways to stash water from casual observers if you get to submerse yourself in it.

Never. No. Definitely NOT, especially here. You don't think it's bizarre that these guys who went looking for the Ark "didn't have cameras with them" when they found it?

On what do you base this assertion? There were only two types of "cubits" used in the Bible, which have been measured from ruins and tunnels built at the time and referenced. One cubit (the most common) was about 17.5 inches long and the other was about 20.4 inches long. This would make the ark around 450 feet long. Even modern wooden ships don't go above 300 feet and require metal reinforcements because of the stress such lengths place on the material, even when they have no cargo.

! Moderator Note Changed to a-v from u-v.