Phi for All

And when the most popular are full, what then? And do you really see businesses allowing their commodities to dictate who they get sold to? First, good luck getting that approved by current voters. Second, lobbyists have been affecting legislation more than voters for a long time. What difference would letting prisoners vote make on legislation that affects private prisons? Agreed. As I said, I also think there is a conflict of interest when prisons are supposed to discourage crime but private prisons would wither if that happened. It makes more sense for them to encourage crime and more arrests, just like arms dealers profit more from war than peace. It would be interesting to crunch some numbers on this to see how much economic sense it made. Would it cost more than current private prisons, which cost more than state or federally funded prisons? While I agree that such services can be made as good as publicly funded ones, there is still the matter of the profit any business is entitled to. Unless they can somehow take this profit from greater efficiency or some more economical process than the government uses, privatized services will ALWAYS cost more than those purchased with tax dollars on a not-for-profit basis. Most of the US sold their publicly owned utilities to private businesses with the promise that they would be better run at a greater savings. We get the same power and water, but it now costs us 25-40% more in most markets. It used to be all about supplying power and water, and that's what we got, people who worked to do just that; now it's about making a profit by supplying power and water, and that's what we're getting. Big difference, I think (about 25-40%). Beyond just privatization, I'm particularly interested in those types of businesses where the goal is in conflict with the business model. I mentioned arms dealers before, and that's kind of an example as well. If the goal of modern warfare is to bring peace, what would arms dealers do if that goal was actually realized? How would medicine survive as a business if suddenly researchers started finding actual cures for diseases? And if prisons actually became the effective deterrent to crime they're supposed to be, what kind of crimes would privately owned prisons want punished so they can continue to profit? Even the clarification didn't help me see how this relates to the seeming conflict of interest that arises from medicine being treated as a for-profit business when it's goal should be to make people healthy but it's success is measured by how often it can treat sick people. Absolutely. I can think of no better first step than to have the government assume a not-for-profit risk pool to insure healthcare in this country. It's intensely stupid to divert the profit portion of our limited healthcare resources to middle men who's job includes denying us the services we count on.

Some maglev designs energize only the portion of the tracks the train is currently on, to save on power consumption. I think maglev is more cost and time efficient than short commuter air travel for those areas where it makes sense, like Europe and the US East Coast (maybe the Los Angeles/San Francisco/Las Vegas triangle as well), but I don't think it will ever replace longer flights. Trains don't generally spend any time in holding patterns, and maglev trains have fewer moving parts and no friction so mechanical problems would seem to cause fewer delays and costs as well.

I think once the cost problems are overcome (and this is inevitable as oil prices rise) you'll start seeing a great deal more investment in sustainable energy. I would like to see space-based solar technology gain prominence for multiple reasons, not the least of which is the formation of global protocols on how we deal with the stuff we put into orbit. I think having energy output devices hovering over the heads of every nation, capable of beaming down massive amounts of power, will cause us to treat one another with more respect.

With privatization being such a big topic these days, and after reading many articles on both sides of the fence, it seems there are some sectors where profit and the need to grow as a business are actually detrimental to the goals of the sector. It's good market economics to see the need for toasters and manufacture some so everyone is happy, but what about those sectors where a cure is really the goal but maintenance makes better sense economically? Healthcare is probably number one on this list. Is the goal of medicine to cure people or to make money? More effort seems to go into treating symptoms rather than root causes, and some treatments, once prescribed, will go on for the rest of a person's life. Part of this can be attributed to laziness, taking pills instead of doing the added diet control and exercise that would make the pill unnecessary, but in other cases a cure would seem to cut into the profits that maintenance provides. It makes one wonder, if someone came up with an inexpensive cure for cancer, what would the response be from those who see medicine primarily as a business? Prisons are also an area where privatization seems to be gaining a foothold. If this becomes a big enough private business sector, will lobbyists be able to affect legislation which will change laws to create more business for prisons? Drug-related incarceration is huge business, mostly because the inmates are non-violent and fairly docile, their sentences are abnormally long, even for first-time offenses compared to the rest of the world, and they require much less overhead to house them in private prison facilities. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate If rehabilitation is one of the goals of imprisonment, how hard is a private prison going to work at it if it will eventually mean fewer inmates and less profit? It seems to me that public funding is one of the best ways to make sure that we actually work harder to try to fix problems rather than trying to make a buck from them. Perhaps this is the lesson we need to learn about some of our public funding, that it must be aimed at cures and not at symptoms.

Your original claim stated that this knowledge you had from religion was empirically derived, that much of religion uses the same methodology as science: But when asked for some of this empirically derived knowledge, all you quote is philosophy and doctrine. You gave us nothing that was based on actual observational evidence that would pass any kind of scientific peer review. These claims aren't falsifiable, which is different from being falsified. They aren't capable of being falsified because there is no way to test them to verify if they're false or not. Falsifiability is one of the first tests of any hypothesis, so your "empirically derived" evidence fails right out of the gate. I am at a loss to understand how you find my skepticism to be so extreme. I've tried to explain it to you, and others have even remarked on where you have overstepped the bounds of logic and reason in your attempt to force my stance into something you can more easily complain about. Your arguments are weak and unfounded with regard to the way I view matters of faith and belief. I fully realize how much easier your stance is to defend if you can define me as ridiculing your beliefs, calling them nonsense and dismissing them, but my preference for scientific explanations for natural phenomena does NOT automatically dismiss everything about all religions. I have learned much from a lifetime of study and exposure to many different faiths and practices, and I don't discount any of it. I have my beliefs, and they remain mine, and I also have my preference for scientific explanations for the rest of it. Please try to reply to my actual words, and not some wild interpretation of them that has no basis in reality.

Copper isn't magnetic. Here's the MSDS on copper dust. Not sure if it would help, but a bucket of sand to rub your hands in might pull the dust off.

Screw that, I say we take theory back from the backward, inbred, buck-toothed, country hill people that stole it from us. I suggest a massive internet campaign featuring lots of pictures of goofballs with captions like, "NO! That 'idea' you had this morning about boogers being brain flakes is NOT A 'THEORY'"! Or maybe like this... THEORY of Evolution IDEA about Alien Abductions SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

His reply about biodiversity WAS serious, and his explanation succinct and spot on. His comment about starting with those who believe in eugenics was merely hilarious. You really don't know John Cuthber. This definition shouldn't be on the same planet with him. He's the most contrary, stubborn, anti-crowd person I've seen on these boards, EVER. He's bitten my head off many times and that was when I agreed with him. He eats sheep for breakfast.

I just can't give you the sheer volume of reputation points you deserve for this post. I'm mailing you a cookie instead.

Can you, please, cite some examples of what you mean here? It might help with your answer to Moontanman's request here: ... which, to make it easy to find, is here:

If you want to prove anything to us, do it here. We have way too many spammers to trust a new joiner who wants us to go offsite. Perhaps you could start with a statement, show some supporting evidence, maybe some way to test your statement, and then show us a conclusion you've drawn. Keep it concise and informative, take small steps if you like. Welcome to SFN.

YOU. ARE. WRONG. Your logic is atrocious and fallacious. I've tried using clear statements to show you why, so I'm reduced to words a child should understand. You're the only person here who "can't imagine what else a person could conclude from these words", yet you fail to grasp what this should clearly tell you: YOU. ARE. WRONG.

I believe this is true, but Joel-NMWJ certainly wouldn't be allowed to use the Carmex brand, or anything that resembled the way the name sounds. In fact, the closer he is to their formula, the further away he'd have to be from anything else Carmex does to sell their product. If they can prove he's trying to copy them the law is going to be in their favor. That said, I have to wonder if flavoring would really work. Some of Carmex's ingredients, like camphor and menthol, are pretty hard to overcome with something else. Remove those and you really don't have the formula right, do you? It seems to me that Carmex would have given some thought to such an obvious expansion of their product line, and the fact that they don't have flavors should tell us something. Joel-NMWJ, laws vary from country to country (and, in fact, so does the Carmex formula, to comply with local regulations), so you should really check with a patent attorney in your area. Any advice you get here is informed opinion at best.

We wouldn't tread on Pirelli's tired old format. When it comes to calendars, you make more money on the wrongs than on the rights. Our 2012 calendar is going to be a visual feast of flesh from our fantastic femmes in all their glory, and I wish I could give you a preview, but right now the photos they sent in are Mayan, not yours.

Thanks for that mooey, and you're right, the argument really had no point. It wasn't really about religion or science. I found myself just correcting PeterJ's re-interpretation of what I'd written. I really dislike fallacious logic used as an argument against ANY statement, much less personal opinion. Btw moo, I DO think you're the awesomest person on Earth, and don't let PeterJ tell you any differently. When it comes to faith, and those things that people believe without the kind of evidence that the scientific method would consider supportive, I don't automatically assume someone is getting it wrong. There are many things we don't know about, many greater powers possible. But assuming we understand those powers to the extent that many religions claim seems hasty and lacking in reasoned judgement. There are many claims religious followers make that can be refuted or better explained by science, such as creationism, or faces on shrouds or pieces of toast. Belief in the supernatural, that which can't be tested or predicted using science, also has its value, but that can only be measured by the individual holding such beliefs. Things that can't be repeated or tested, those things that offer no predictive power as a foundation for the measurable advancement of knowledge, these things don't interest science, but they have a power in people's thoughts and actions. Again I'll say, I prefer the firm foundation, the careful steps that science takes as opposed to the leaps of faith and mysterious ways of many (not all) religions. I find a lot of wisdom in religious writings, but prefer my knowledge more filtered by testing.

It's almost - repeat, almost - funny the way you keep trying to substitute your straw man "you think religion is nonsense" argument for my "science provides a more trustworthy explanation for me" argument. I understand why you feel the need to make me seem to ridicule religion. You want to lump me in with a category of people you feel able to dismiss due to the extremism of their stance. Religion doesn't interest me?! I've been on these boards for the last seven years and have fought hard to keep this section open in spite of multiple attempts (some successful) to close it. You have no clue about what I've been saying if you think I'm trying to dismiss all religion. This seems like an arrogant argument. This thread isn't about specific religions, so your assertion about my lack of knowledge of specific claims is unfounded. There you go again, arguing against something I didn't say. You need to start reading the actual, carefully chosen words I'm writing and stop generalizing yourself. I didn't say the scientific method is opposed to religion, I said it's about observing the natural world and therefore isn't interested in a supernatural deity. Before you go jumping the gun again, this is specifically in regards to deities who have chosen not to reveal themselves to the kind of observation science would require for study and experimentation. Just that. Only that. Read no more into it. I don't deny it, I never said it's impossible, I said I prefer not etching knowledge in stone or putting it under a sacred shroud where it remains free from scrutiny or investigation. Do you see the difference? What's making this hard to follow is your attempts to push my arguments into places I don't mean them to go. Quite frankly, I don't need as strong an argument as "religion is nonsense". I know that's an easier stance for you to rebut, but it doesn't reflect reality. Honestly, you remind me of my 12-year-old. With her, if something isn't great it's horrible, if food isn't yummy it's gross, if a game isn't exciting it's boring. Why do you assume that if I say I prefer the firmer grounding and the rigor of scientific methodology that I must think religion is nonsense? There are many valid aspects of spirituality and even specific religious teachings. I just think science has a firmer claim on those aspects that are based in reality and the observable universe.

For the purpose of what I was replying to, the use of the word belief with regard to scientific theory, no distinction was really needed. I never really commented on any religion's claims. I just said I prefer the firmer foundation the scientific method provides for explanations of natural phenomena. What are your qualifiers for taking something seriously? Did you want me to include my life's experience with spiritual matters and various religions before making a rational choice? "Knowing" a thing seems a lot like deciding something is "true". The distinction between believing something is true and accepting the best supported current explanation may seem trivial to you, but the latter seems not only to be a wiser choice, but it's also makes it easier to recognize a better explanation when it comes along. That's an assumption you're not really entitled to, but I'd be happy to explain my position on practically any aspect of religion. You claimed I made a "casual assumption" that the scientific method couldn't be used with religion. I didn't "dismiss the whole of religion", I pointed out that unobservable deities are supernatural, something the scientific method is not equipped to explain. Read back through my posts. I'm really just trying to define why accepting scientific explanations doesn't qualify as belief in the way most religions use the term. I didn't say "religion is no more than unsupported beliefs". I said scientific theories offer the most supported explanations. Frankly, I've lost track of all the things you thought I said that I didn't. I don't know where I said "certain knowledge is impossible", but making an assumption that something will immediately follow is just the kind of thin-ice kind of reasoning I like to avoid.

When the corruption is enacted as law, as happens quite often in the US, does it still get counted as corruption? I think historians 50 years from now will point to the Iraq war as one of the biggest, most corrupt scams ever perpetrated on the American public. Maybe if you put enough 0s behind the number, corruption turns into plain old politics.

What crack? You mean the one in the clasp holding the cloak together? I think that's just mystical writing, or perhaps a depiction of the mighty Xylxacyxjan bird. Xittenn, I ordered Power Cloaks for you and Appolinaria for Christmas. It will arrive by postal service, all by itself, with no outer wrapping. When it gets there, please, both of you, remove all your clothes, try on your cloak and post the photos. Happy Holidays!

My bad. I should have said "followers", perhaps. Or is that unfair? I certainly didn't claim they all did. I merely mentioned those that do. Books like the Bible and the Koran are often called "sacred" by those whose beliefs are bound by them. Am I wrong? I won't ask you to point out where (to avoid unnecessary nitpicking), but in re-reading my first post I have to disagree. I don't get it. "Either you know it is true or you don't" seems like just the kind of incontrovertible statement that a skeptic should avoid. I was very careful not to make any kind of qualitative judgement about religion, other than the observation that one risks greater error by accepting something as true as opposed to accepting something as the best current explanation. You seem to be reading a lot into my words and jumping to conclusions that aren't supported by what I wrote. I made no such assumption. I never said studying religion using scientific methods was impossible. But there are some choices you would have to make. An unobservable deity is outside the natural world and therefore outside the purview of science. I replied to tar's contention that one had to "believe" in scientific theories, with the stance that belief is the conviction that something is true, whereas scientific theory is simply the best, most supported explanation, reached using a methodology which is more trustworthy than belief. This seems like word games to me, no offense. Religion is a broad topic and means something different to just about everybody. There are many things that make religion a valid study. I just wanted to point out where "belief" differs from accepting that a scientific theory offers the most supported explanation for natural phenomena. I shun the concept of "belief" because conviction leads straight to being locked up. If we think we're right about something, we stop looking for other answers.

I doubt this is true. Which claim are you assuming is unsupported? A scientific theory will always have much to support it. Your definition of knowledge seems overly rigid. Like the beliefs of most religions. Good observation. I think I made it quite clear I was talking about religious beliefs. Where's the "baby" in this approach to understanding? If I inadvertently included too many religions when I referred to "scriptures", I apologize. Are there some religious scriptures that were written during the Bronze Age that aren't interpreted for modern worshipers? It's interesting that my preferences for scientific methodology automatically, in your mind, relegated all religion to "a load of nonsense". I thought I was being quite careful to describe the difference between keeping an open mind with a skeptical approach and risking error by accepting religious explanations as incontrovertibly true.

To the skeptical mind, there are no absolutes, no firmly fixed truths, no proofs, no beliefs. Scientific theory simply offers the best current explanation for observable phenomena, as free from bias and interpretation as we can possibly get. This keeps us questing for the refinement of our knowledge, always seeking ways to test what we think we know. Belief requires absolute adherence to a certain answer. There's usually no way to test a belief so we have to suspend skepticism even further. Religious belief adds a "sacred" factor, threatening eternal punishment if the belief is questioned, making any kind of progress all but impossible. Scriptures written for bronze age primitives have to be interpreted with maddening vagueness to derive meaning for modern people. People stop thinking about the question when they "believe" they know the answer. I don't "believe" in scientific theory; I trust it to be the most likely, comprehensible statement. It's probably not perfect, but at least it stands a chance of being so in the future because we'll keep testing and questioning it. We won't put it under a sacred shroud and protect it from all scrutiny.

(Shhh, we'll substitute one of our own ) Your post is highly informative. I appreciate your efforts. CaptainPanic's Urinary Incontinence Protection... The Pad When Things Go Bad!

There is a great deal of evidence to support the hypothesis that fractalres' posts are designed to engender just this response. Possible conclusions include maintaining a sense of superiority, cognitive disconnection and poor communicative skills. Due to the number of people who have voiced Klaynos' concern above, and the continued vagueness of the ensuing explanations, I would have to say fractalres' threads make him feel smarter the more people respond with a lack of understanding. Have you ever told a devious riddle and then watched as everyone struggled for the answer that you already knew? For some there is a certain glee involved in being cryptic and watching others flounder as you stand on firm ground. Sometimes more so because you're the one who pushed them in.

Homework?