Phi for All

That's a great way to put it!

It wasn't mooeypoo's call, since she's involved in this thread.

Hmm, I think imatfaal has distinct rogue characteristics. He "prefer(s) to be the guy behind - with a decent metal sword". Can he disable a trap, or pick a lock? I think the OP is mainly talking about how a blade with an almost impossibly thin edge would hold up against metal or stone. Would it fold or would the atom-sized edge slip cleanly between the opposing atoms? Carbon makes steel strong but too much makes it brittle. Would an edge of single iron atoms alone be able to split stone or other metal?

FTFY.

I would try to avoid anything that might increase prison populations. We already have 25% of the world's prison population, but only 5% of the world population. Fines would be hard to pay for someone with no job who now had no welfare benefits. Believe me, all of this has been tried and it's all failed. My best idea is some kind of standardized Minimum Subsistence program, where food, clothing and shelter are provided no matter who you are, for as long as you need it. It would be completely no-frills, available to anybody, designed to keep people off the streets and hep them learn some kind of skill or help clean up neighborhoods. It would provide a kind of baseline where the funds are used specifically for the necessary items instead of being paid out to be used for whatever (*cough* beer *cough*). The biggest problem with this idea is that it would put the widow and her family in with the slackers, possibly in the same facility. I don't like that part but it would end most of the current corruption. The second biggest problem would be the psychological factor, but I'm sure there are ways to address both those problems. Speaking of prisons, here is a study done by the state of Arizona (some pretty hard-core conservatives and the home of Republican Senator John McCain). It shows that privatizing prisons, despite legislation requiring cost-effective measures, is more costly than publicly funded prisons. I think you'll find this to be true in virtually every area where you take a taxpayer-funded program and try to turn it into a for-profit business. And in cases like prisons, you still have to pay taxes for the government to pay for them, and you actually have to pay more taxes.

Exactly, no way to absorb the shock. And bone would probably shatter it even if the person attacking you had no wooden pole.

I'm glad you brought this up. Welfare is a key social program that can never be effectively privatized. No one I've ever talked to about welfare would deny benefits to a widowed mother of three who needed a temporary helping hand. Equally, I've never talked to anyone who wants those funds to go to a healthy, work-capable person who just doesn't want to work, but it costs less to put them on welfare than it does to put them in prison if they turn to crime for a living. And, apparently, policing the system effectively isn't cost-efficient either, since no one has been able or willing to come up with an answer. I keep thinking a good computer algorithm could be set up to sniff out fraud and corruption in Welfare, Medicare and Social Security. There has to be some flags that fraudulent claims send up that could be sniffed out with the right searches in the systems.

I knew a Swiss lady once who spoke five languages. I asked her which one she "thought" in, and she said it varied based on what she was thinking about. Math was easier to think about in German, French for more abstract thought and English for social interactions.

The combination of high and low carbon steels folded multiple times makes a sword that can survive being highly sharpened AND stressed by concussive blows.

What you're missing is: 1) How long does this process take? 2) How much does the machine cost? 3) How much energy does it take to run the machine vs the oil it reclaims (use the answers to #2 & 3 to figure return on investment)? 4) If it were scaled up from a household model to one that could serve a community, would it be more efficient? I could see a community investing in a larger model and then selling the fuel back to its citizens to pay back the investment if the cost was less than at a gas station. I think a single household model seems inefficient, but without the answers to questions 1, 2 & 3 there's no way to know.

The whole concept of sharpening a sword to razor thinness is pure Hollywood. While a thinner blade cuts better, it also is more easily damaged. If the only thing a sword needed to cut was flesh, razor sharp would be best, but if you encounter bone or metal along the way, a thinner edge is going to fold or flatten or nick very easily. Even with diamond, if it's going to take any damage, the thinner the edge is the more easy it will be to damage it. In fact, diamonds themselves are cut by first carving a groove and then placing a steel blade into the groove, which is then struck on the back with a hammer. The same thing would happen to a diamond sword if its edge were so thin that it could easily be grooved by another blade or edge. Steel is best for swords because they need to flex a bit to absorb the shock imparted when you hit something with it. Diamond would actually be pretty rotten at this. The octahedral crystals that form a diamond make them too rigid and firm for use as a sword. Even tougher metals like titanium are no good for swords (busted, Blade!), due to their rigidity. Steel can also be heat-treated which lets it hold its edge longer than other metals.

Oh well, suspension is usually a good tool for letting people cool down, read some posts without the urge to respond, and hopefully learn something in the process. It doesn't always work, and there will always be people who are simply inconsistent with our purpose here. Scientific discussion and megalomaniacal behavior do not mix.

superball has been permanently banned for repeated personal attacks, ignoring the rules and not learning a damn thing after being suspended.

! Moderator Note Thread moved to Engineering.

Welcome to the Great Recession. Hopefully, with time, the economy will bounce back and that area will start seeing more use. You'd be surprised at some of the ways those big floor to ceiling windows can help capture light to save on lighting costs, and they might also be using radiant heating and cooling as well. Tinting helps reflect or capture heat depending on the season and scoops on the roof bring in natural ventilation. I don't know for sure if your library did this, but it's clear that the plans went through public hearings before they were adopted as the final design. I doubt your city council wanted a building with an onerous upkeep. They would have taken advantage of modern efficiency in public works design. Who says their neighbors have internet access? And if they did, who says it's wi-fi? And if it was, how long would they let neighbors stay over to use it (assuming it was legal)? Schools have lots of requirements for off-hours meetings. You need to have at least a building manager there to lock up afterwards. You have to have a teacher sponsor the meeting and take responsibility for those who attend. And it may even be out of the question in some municipalities where risks to the students are an even greater concern. Eventually, maybe. Books have stood the test of time, though, I wouldn't count them out any time soon. I thought they'd stop making vinyl records when CDs came out, but I was wrong. You were arguing that privatizing things that taxes currently pay for would give people that tax money back. The average salary puts most people in the 25% tax bracket, but you can't give it all back (we need those interstate highways and some federal funds, right?) so I was going to give you back 17% on taxes (really generous of me) so you can now privately buy all those things taxes used to pay for. But private businesses would need to provide at least the same service the government did, plus they need a profit for their shareholders. A privatized swimming pool would need to charge as much as the public pool did, plus an amount for profit. This is where privatization makes no sense. How can you possibly offer the same service at the same price when someone has to pay off the shareholders? Then I don't understand where you were coming from with the union/recreation question. Which HAVE to cost more because they're private. The deal with shared public programs and facilities is that we agree that having some things available to everyone, regardless of wealth or working status, is a benefit to the society as a whole, a gift that we as humans can give because we're a cooperative society. Nobody gets where they are by themselves, I don't care how many bootstraps you pull yourself up by. We're only strong because we unite to make ourselves strong. Public institutions are a pledge we are able to make that says, "Yes, you are part of a much greater bond that reflects what we've all achieved."

I don't know about an eventual destiny, like a final culmination type of thing. I don't believe anything is "set", like etched in stone, but I do think it's very likely we're headed off-planet. We'll need more resources and room if our global population continues to grow. That at least seems to be scientifically supported. There's an awful lot of mining to be done in our system, but it's not practical to keep taking off from Earth, so some kind of other base seems like a next logical step.

Ah, the Pallucidaran Pasta Monster theory.

Valentin Dolzhenko, your translator is hampering our scientific understanding. Perhaps if you were to concentrate on smaller sections of your idea, we could get a better idea of what you're saying.

Until we can change the way people think about the future (something that seems in short supply EVERYWHERE), then yes, it's the best way to make sure it happens. They owned the land around that town center. With land prices in your city, believe me, they saved a lot building it where they did, and added to your city's reputation, beauty and livability. Where, without paying a lot more? Probably not as centrally located and in as nice a neighborhood. Not always accessible, not always portable on trips without expensive gadgets, not as inexpensive and foolproof, not as senior-friendly. OK. Give them back 17% on taxes. No privatized businesses would accept such a low profit, so where does the extra money for pools and parks and libraries and roads come from? I'm unaware of any union benefits that would be classified as recreation like a park or a library. Thanks. You bring up good points too. Lakes filled with people are not great places for animals, so where should they go?

That's great. I think you have above average access to wealthy friends, but it's obvious you're deserving of their charity. Their friends are most likely living the same way. Not everyone has wealthy friends like you do . Many people find it difficult to think far enough ahead to take care of needs they'll have in the future, even rich people (there's an astonishing number of wealthy people who die without a will, believe it or not). That's why taking tax dollars out of their paycheck for things like retirement and public works helps everyone. That's why Social Security and Medicare were established in the first place. And even a couple who never had children benefit from having paid taxes for public education. Every restaurant, bank, store and contractor they solicit has employees educated from public funds, ensuring a certain standard of proficiency. This building had to dovetail with the BlackRock Center for the Arts. It also fits the surrounding contours of the town center. It looks like a great blend of modern efficiency and New England historical society. Not easy to achieve. For many people, public libraries are their only access to the web. They also act as meeting places for community affairs. Oh, and they have lots and lots of books, a great way to learn and experience places you can't afford to visit, times you never lived in and things you never imagined. If you like a great movie you should read the book that inspired it. It will be filled with fantastic details the movie could never reveal in 2-3 hours. For many, books and public libraries are better than theaters and movies, an archive of knowledge that waits for the reader to start the show by opening the cover. Hardcopy education and adventure at your own pace, a priceless public hub of literate communities. I didn't say we needed more funding, I said we needed to formulate a better system and fund that. I'd like to know what Finland does to get 100% literacy and the best math and science scores in the world for $2090 less and one year more per child than we do. If we adopted their system and spent $1045 more per child than they do (saving ourselves $1045 per child), could we be better than they are? You think the current public services programs give everyone everything they need? It seems like the people who use these facilities are finding plenty of incentive to work. The fact that they have access to shared services and land their taxes pay for is motivation that has always strengthened communities and kept balance in a society too prone to extremes. I don't understand the question as written. I don't get the union/recreation facilities connection you're trying to make. I've never been a union member, but I'm glad they negotiate the kinds of wages and perks they do. It raises the bar with the people who might employ me because they have to compete. Without unions, millions of non-union workers would make less money.

How lucky for you! How many blue-collar hard-working lower middle class people is your friend willing to support with pool privileges? How will your friend decide who gets to swim? Remember, those workers, under YOUR system, also need library memberships, community center memberships, parks memberships and they also have to pay to drive on the roads, too. Right now, they're working hard but still living paycheck to paycheck for just the basics. Where is the extra money coming from to pay for the profit your privatized world will require? Are you referring to the new Silver Springs Library? If so, the old one was built 54 years ago. Not much in a structure that old to make way for improvements like phone systems and computers. By the way, the new library's atrium is set up to capture sunlight for heating in the winter and reflect it during the summer. It's got a LEED Silver rating from the US Green Building Council for sustainability and energy efficiency. I'm pretty sure you'll find many other reasons why privatization is equally undesirable in other areas. Thanks for the props, though. We need to reform Social Security and Medicare, no doubt about it. That doesn't mean the whole system is untenable. It's much more efficient to keep what works and shore up the parts that are being exploited. Here you touch on the whole point of social programs. It's not about helping the poor or charity from the rich. It's about how we want the least of us to live, and about creating opportunity that reflects what a great a country we are. You really have no right to claim that people have an equal ability to succeed in the US unless you grant a measure of our pooled resources as a society to ensure a minimum subsistence that reflects how great we want to be. If we want average-schooled citizens (based on global markers), then our current funding is barely keeping pace. If we want above average education for our citizens, we need to work harder and be willing to fund and formulate a system that will ensure that. Why not entitle everyone to have access to one? That way, the rich won't be the ones to decide who merits access. So... let them eat cake?! Pretty snooty, Marie. Despite the environmental reasons why lakes aren't good for public swimming, sooner or later, all the lakes would probably get bought up for private use. You begin to see why publicly owned lands and programs might be the best use of our resources. How can you expect the lesser people to work for you rich overlords if you don't allow them some freedom and recreation they can be proud of?

So that's why my cat can power himself when the lights are out!

I know MY wife, and if I were you, my wife would NEVER understand why I cut a brownie that way. It would be like tying her to a chair and forcing her to watch me fold a road map the wrong way. Well, the top-half/bottom-half cut gives you half each for the bake sale, but you're going to need more cuts for brownies if you don't want the rest of the wives mad at you. The next riddle is "If zapatos has 25 wounds each requiring between 5-8 stitches, how much suture will the doctor need to finish the job?"

Can you draw us a picture or does that give away the answer? I can't imagine how (or why) you would take a single rectangular brownie that wasn't along an edge and also not parallel to any of the pan edges. Was this piece at a strange angle? Because that's the only way you can cut a rectangle that isn't parallel to any edge of a rectangular pan. My best solution includes suffering. Instead of cutting the brownies with a knife, she kills you with it, gives the remaining brownies to one of the bake sales and tells the other bake sale that she made an identical batch for them but you ate it. Or, if she doesn't want to go to jail, she could stand the remaining pan of brownies on edge and split them down the center, then cut each half into rectangles. This would make two identical batches of thinner brownies.

Add another male to your statistics. Good luck!