Phi for All

If I had posted as a member first, my judgement as a Mod would be suspect. Posting a modnote first about a general rule (as opposed to an argumentative style or fallacy use) didn't really set up a conflict that would have required me to recuse myself. If, at any time, ANYONE seriously thinks I've compromised myself with this action, I'll remove myself from the discussion, no questions asked. I won't risk the integrity of the Staff just because I sometimes can't keep my mouth shut. Spying on our own citizens for terrorism may seem justified to some, but what happens when we start privatizing more prisons? When those for-profit prisons decide they want to expand their business, how difficult will it be for them to get hold of information collected by the government that hires them to house criminals? I know it's a slippery slope argument but when corporations are buttering up the slope with incremental changes that benefit them, the argument gains strength. I sometimes feel like the frog in the pot of water that's being slowly heated.

You'll have to tell us more so we can discuss it. We don't allow eBay links at all, especially from new joiners.

Not necessarily, and even when it does it doesn't have to mean growth of US jobs. Cisco is doing very well as a company but has been laying off US workers this year, I believe over 6000 at last count. I've found it very difficult to find out what percentage of US-based Cisco's 70,000+ employees are US citizens. I don't know what types of regulations you're talking about here.

Corporations are made up of people, but the entity itself should not be given the rights of a person because they are excused from many of the consequences a person is subject to. Are you saying it's OK for corporations to have unfair advantages because compliance might affect their workers? That we should accept excessive levels of pollution or privacy invasion because it would create more jobs? There is no real correlation between a company's profit and how many jobs it creates. That's more of a market influence.

Ultimately, any kind of world peace is dependent on a common authority. Trade is one of the elements that keep nations friendly when that trade benefits all partners, so I don't think we can eliminate that element from a global convention. The common authority is going to be the biggest obstacle in any kind of global government. It must represent all peoples without becoming too large and unwieldy. People should be the ultimate authority, even above those that govern the country they live in. People should be allowed to send delegates to a global convention even if their governments choose not to participate. This is a lot more complicated than I thought at first. Almost every thought I have about it is fraught with more complications.

It's a hypocritical practice no matter who does it. The first thing that would happen in the US after abolishing sugar subsidies is that sugar prices would come down and all the manufacturers who currently use more expensive alternatives (but less expensive than current sugar) like high-fructose corn syrup would switch to sugar. For a brief time these manufacturers would enjoy more profit from their products, and then someone would start using the savings to discount and undersell their competition. Soon prices would come down and the market would be less restricted and more free than it's been since the early 19th century. Platform Republicans, rejoice! Consumers, rejoice! The sugar barons wouldn't lose as much money as you think, considering they would no longer have to pay out all the resources to keep this antiquated, complex and counter-intuitive system alive. They would scream for a while, then they would merely sob, and eventually they would embrace it and claim it was their idea in the first place. After lifting our foot off the necks of the rest of the world, we'd still be free to negotiate trade tariffs to make sure our own markets don't come to too much harm. And the world would be a fairer place to live.

! Moderator Note Due to the sheer amount of spam we get from new joiners, I've had to remove your outside links. Please forgive the inconvenience if you're genuinely interested in learning more about this subject, or rot in hell if you're just here to spam us with dodgy snake oil claims. We've discussed this before here.

Corporations are people, is that what you mean? Corporations love it when people conflate the collection of individuals that make up any business with corporate personhood. That way they get to become "We, the People", in ultimate authority over every office and position in this country, over every congressperson, executive and Supreme Court judge. The fact is that corporations aren't liable in the way people are, that's why they're set up the way they are. Corporations are given charters to do business within limited parameters. They can go bankrupt without affecting the assets of the owners. Corporations can't go to jail. But lobbying has allowed corporations to spend undisclosed amounts on advertising that affects election outcomes. It is flat out wrong to let corporations enjoy all the freedoms and power of personhood with none of the responsibilities and consequences. The Constitution is all about keeping government's influence in private lives to a minimum, but corporate charters are all about government oversight into the dealings of business. Corporate personhood is a HUGE conflict of interest. What type of regulations am I talking about? The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 is a good example to use. We're trying to improve the financial regulatory system that allowed our current crisis to happen, but the Dodd-Frank Act is over a year old now and most of the changes have yet to be put in place. We have new rules but policymakers are dragging their feet (perhaps at the urging of their campaign financiers?) about issuing those rules and implementing the changes we desperately need to start meaningful reform. Relaxed environmental regulations throughout the Bush II era didn't create more jobs, even though corporate executives claim that's what would happen now. In fact, regulatory jobs were lost in both public and private sectors. The savings went straight into the pockets of investors and executives. Bush II did a lot of damage to environmental regulations in his last year before he left office, like reducing the time the public has to contest the use of public lands for things like uranium mining to a mere 15 days, essentially removing all Congressional authority to make emergency land withdrawals, and pulling the teeth from the Federal Land Policy Management Act. This has all happened before. Twice in US history, the people have sought to curtail special interest influence in our government. Andrew Jackson's opposition to the National Bank was famously hailed as removing the unfair influence of private concerns over our government. The 20th century progressive movement, arguably begun by Republican Senator Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, challenged the corrupt President Taft's special corporate interests with his National Progressive Republicans League, made famous by Theodore Roosevelt. Special interest corruption by corporations intent on changing laws in their favor is a cyclical dilemma, one we can overcome only with constant vigilance and oversight. And now is the perfect time for reform, when crisis is upon us, the economy is in peril and the need for correction is so visible. This is the time for We, the People, to demand that this unfair influence be stopped, that our government be realigned with OUR needs, not the needs of chartered businesses, lobbyists and robber barons. It will only get harder the longer we wait, the more we listen to corporate advertising telling us they have the answers.

OK, after conferring with other Staff members, I've decided to participate. Our rules prohibit a Mod with prior involvement in a thread from moderating that thread, but if I give up any further Staff action I shouldn't be in conflict. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I aim the blame for many of our current problems at the corporate sector, but it's our politicians who allowed them too much control over the regulations that restrict them, and we're the ones who voted for those politicians. So I know the real blame is ours, the voters, but I think I know how to fix it and that's the only thing we should be really focused on. Corporations just want more profit. It's what they do, the nature of the scorpion. It's a great thing if you're an investor. It's different if you're a competitor, or an employee, or an ordinary citizen. You have recourse against unfair practices at every level, you just need to exercise them. And we have to understand, we absolutely HAVE to understand, that regulations are the necessary checks to balance out the power corporations have in our society, and we absolutely HAVE to understand that corporations will fight HARD to make sure those regulations have as minimal an impact on their profit as possible. The corporations will argue that they won't be able to survive. They will argue that they are being strangled by unfair government regulations. They will do this because success means more profit. And if they don't succeed, they will continue to do business here. There are too many examples to list where big business claimed they would die if something wasn't done to help them out, and we didn't fall for it, and they did just fine. Just as there are too many examples to list where they demanded and we caved in, and we now regret that we were so weak and stupid and forgetful. Most of the privacy violations from big business are aimed at making more money. Most are fairly innocuous, cookies to tell them more about what we like. If we privatize prisons and law enforcement, expect those privacy violations to be turned into ways to make money by putting us in jail. Expect to be painted as a violator, a criminal, a perpetrator. The government has a different agenda, but since so much of our government is directed by our businesses, the public and private agendas can often overlap. The solution to all of this is to regulate both businesses and politicians, take back some of the control we've lost by being complacent and letting "the professionals" handle everything. Big Business will call it un-American. They will call it unfair and stifling. They will kick and scream and at a certain point, when it becomes unprofitable to continue the tirade, they will claim they supported the measures all along, and that it's the best thing for the country. Hopefully they will look elsewhere for more profit for a while, but they will continue to try to get us to relax the regulations in any way they can get away with. Scorpions are necessary, even vital, but if we aren't careful with how we treat them, aren't WE to blame if they sting us?

It may not be that we need changes to our Constitution. As I said before, we may just need to redefine our goals with regards to what's already in the Constitution. I'm not really all that qualified to talk about military matters. Personally, I think there is a huge conflict of interest in the way we acquire our weapons, but I also acknowledge that there is still a need to defend ourselves. I think the military is used to further the interests of certain business sectors, and I disagree with that use vehemently. I think if you remove the conflicts of interest, you might find that conflicts as a whole will decrease as well. Money, though, that's a different matter. The US economy is so huge that it can't help but affect the rest of the world. Foreign aid, as an example, affects other countries tax rates and how they perceive us. While we currently give aid in order to help economies avoid needless poverty, much of our aid only affects a relatively small number of people in these countries, and does very little to reform policies that perpetuate the destitution. Since the US started growing sugar after the Louisiana Purchase, we have imposed tariffs on foreign sugar and subsidized our own growers with a bizarre and labyrinthine program that is supposed to protect us from the volatility of the world's sugar markets. They have done so by keeping US sugar prices at the very top, higher than any other country (so we avoid the ups and downs by remaining constantly UP). A Department of Commerce study shows that a 1-cent increase in US sugar prices adds between $250-300M to consumer food bills. The program itself, regardless of price hikes, costs the taxpayers more than $3B each year in handouts to growers who are already making 2-3 times world average for sugar production. Foreign quotas are set at the whim of those who control the programs, and we often put foreign growers out of business, then flood their markets with free food (with policies like Reagan's Quota Offset Program), which makes it almost impossible for the former foreign sugar growers to switch to other crops to eke out a living. In other words, our policies are supposed to promote free enterprise and abolish poverty, yet they only promote our own businesses, impoverish foreign economies and only alleviate hunger for short amounts of time while forcing local foreign food growers out of business. We look like huge hypocrites to a good portion of the world, especially when our military gets involved in helping "the spread of democracy".

And that's why I think it would be best to start it here in the US, invite others to address issues where US policy affects their country, and use that as a platform for others to emulate. I'd love to hear from other countries how our policies affect them, beneficially and adversely. Correct the adverse ones that don't cause us more problems and we just made a better friend. For me, the idea would be to eventually show how much better things get in the US with an update of our Constitution (or perhaps a redefining of our goals with regards to the existing Constitution). Other countries citizens pressure their leaders for something similar and more countries benefit, showing the rest that they are being left in the dust. If we all look like we're moving towards some kind of unified global understanding, I think even those who presently would demand concessions others would deem unacceptable might start to bend so they don't break.

I think it would be fantastic if we could announce to the world that we are holding this convention to address the state of our republic/democracy/political system, and that, while all decisions about the future of our country will be made by us, we welcome the input of any country that is currently trying to improve the lives of its citizens. This would seem to be a logical first step, and if it's successful, perhaps others could hold their own conventions with the same caveats. Eventually, this might lead to a global convention where any lingering abuses can be addressed.

In the long run, I think it would be best to include the global population. In reality, I think, if we were able to agree to have the convention in the first place, I can't see the majority agreeing to allow foreign countries to participate, even just to put their two cents in. We can't even adopt successful policies from foreign countries, no matter how many problems they would solve.

! Moderator Note Please, the personal attacks are unnecessary. Keep your comments focused on discussing ideas, not the people who have them. Civility, people, always. I shouldn't have to remind any of the people involved here. This really pisses me off because now I can't take part in this discussion, and I really wanted to. Next person who uses a personal attack gets some time off.

Four quarts, or four and a half to five if you change the filter at the same time (which you should). Buy the oil at an auto parts store so you can get a new filter and the people there will tell you which oil is best for your area. They can also tell you where to recycle your old oil.

Actually, the reindeer/sleigh thing is just marketing. Since 1966, Santa has used a teleporter to place all the gifts in people's homes (how else do you think he got into houses without fireplaces?). In 1987, when replicator technology became available, the elves were downsized to gnomes and all the toys were simultaneously created AND teleported to their destinations. While kids search the night sky for a flying sleigh, thinking Santa makes his round-the-world trip in a single night, the actual process only takes about seven seconds. The really hard part is removing all the milk and cookies left behind. Fortunately, that's what the gnomes live on for the rest of the year.

Nothing. Suffering is a psychological concept, pain is biological.

I think it must be. There are way too many examples of successful policies from foreign countries that would help us work smarter, but get marginal attention simply because of the source. "We don't do things that way" is usually the common denial response. If a politician suggested that we copy a French program or any policy that works for a country considered "Socialist", it would make no difference what it concerned or how successful it was, it would be professional suicide for the pol who brought it up. It may simply be that lobbyists for people who profit from our inefficiency find the foreign angle an easy spin. It's still a play on our pride, but when something could be successful and we won't even give it a try, pride wins over brains and that's never good.

Let's steer this discussion a bit more towards Earth Science and less towards Politics or I sense a thread move coming on. Just sayin'.

Thanks for posting the abstract, DrRocket. That's what Sandra1 should have done. ! Moderator Note Sorry Sandra1, but we get too much spam to allow new joiners to link offsite. We are here to discuss, not to advertise your site.

Oh JohnB, you're lighting up a straw man. I did stipulate that they had to be on a grid for my idea to work. I agree that getting power to those that are underpowered would take precedent. But the US tends to want to bring aid in the form of US contractors building hydroelectric dams that not only mess up the local environment, they also fail to bring anything but the lowest paying labor jobs to the area, with much of the funds allotted for work going into the pockets of the local governors. It's foreign aid that does more for a select few US businesses, and usually ends with the locals having a poor opinion of us. For those areas where the power is there but inefficiently used, putting efficient appliances in the homes might solve their power problems, decrease the corruption and garner a better opinion from the population. I'm just saying we don't always have to leap to build dams.

Xittenn already pointed out that the acceleration you want yields about 6.5 G's, and average humans start blacking out around 5 G's. Without some kind of inertial dampening, you're going to need something that slows the wearer down without the abrupt ending and nothing above 5 G's. A parachute works to slow a fall, but needs a lot of distance and time to be effective. If you could project some kind of force field ahead of you that decreased your speed by 50% every second, you could get down to about 11 kph in 6 seconds. You'd still need something to push against, though, and it shouldn't be the ground.

Personally, I think there are many misconceptions about right/left, conservative/liberal labeling. Like the current major political parties, they are too encompassing to be valuable concepts in any meaningful way. If I think a widow with three kids deserves welfare from the state, does that make me left-leaning? If I think a healthy individual who is capable of working doesn't deserve welfare from the state, does that make me right-leaning? What am I if I think both these statements are valid? Why do supposedly far-right conservatives like the Tea Party want to block payroll tax cuts? I thought they were all about less taxes. As for the OP, everyone who argues politics does so from an emotional standpoint. If it were all logical choices, there wouldn't be a problem, but someone is almost always affected adversely whenever a decision is made that affects the nation. Again personally, I think where most of the problems stem are from mixing politics with other concerns, like religion or business. We all want the best education for our children, but disagree where that education should come from. I think the best use of our money is from public funding, some think privatized education is better motivated, and still others think education should include religious ideology. Emotions are more likely to increase when profit and dogma are involved. But I can be extremely emotional without profit or belief, simply because I think certain aspects of society require cooperation and communication and should be untainted by individual concerns. If attacks on your stance seem overly aggressive, sometimes it's because the other side thinks YOU are the one who is being illogical. It could be that we resort to aggression when we come up against an equally logical viewpoint as an attempt to knock it down for good, overwhelm it completely. It seems completely logical to me to stop sugar subsidies; I'm equally sure it seems completely logical to an employee of United States Sugar Corporation to continue them.

It's hard to read past Philippians 5: 22-24; they only wrote four chapters in that book.

Absolutely. In some cases, heat treating is essential to the application.