Phi for All

Any excuse to wear the leather.

This is EXACTLY what I mean by saying people expect a Mod to be unfairly heavy-handed and power-hungry. The above certainly does NOT warrant an immediate ban. Two, maybe three weeks suspension, tops. If you say you're sorry and buy me something nice. You decide how sorry you are (you should at least be iPad sorry; if you're iPad2 64gig 3G Wi-Fi sorry, I can trim this down to a 3 day suspension with no adjustment to your warning status. Act now, supplies are limited!).

Done.

Many newcomers expect Moderators to be heavy-handed, power-hungry egotists who judge based on what they like or dislike. We've worked pretty hard to keep that out of our staff ranks. I think it's best we stay out of this kind of competition. If I won, I would be impossible to live with. Look what I've already done, paying Klaynos to say nice things about me! And I drew a mustache on mooeypoo's profile picture. Despicable! One of the criteria for Staff positions that was set up by blike in the beginning was that no one who asked for Mod status would be given that status, to avoid having people who crave it. Indeed, the Admins had to beg swansont for years to be a Mod (I, being such a great person, didn't force the Admins to sink that low; I said yes the minute blike asked me). Resident Experts are chosen the same way, on merit alone, after consensus vote by Mods and Admins. I don't know how Admins are chosen; you'd have to ask blike. He's currently sailing to Bermuda on the yacht Cap'n Refsmmat bought for him. Why don't we compromise? You can vote for a member in any category and also put a Staff member (in parentheses) for that same category if you feel they deserve it. We'll tally them separately. Seriously, we don't want Staff winning this recognition. That much prestige would blind our objectivity.

Reading doesn't have to be an alternative to cartoons. People can do both. Can you explain first what you mean by your title question, perhaps with some examples and reasoning before listing alternative behavior? Tom Hanks is great. I learned how to spell better from watching him in Toy Story.

From this reply, I can't decide whether you don't belong here or whether you need this forum more than anything. Because they will be on different battlefields, facing in different directions, armed with weapons that are useless on each other.

The Light Barrier has been banned at his own request.

Remember that you're not asking for the odds of a completely random occurrence. Your daughter was already reading 101 Dalmations, so the odds of that are 1:1. You were in public, making the odds of seeing a dog higher. There might have been a Dachshund in the car behind you and a Labrador doing a head bob in the car in front, but you selected the Dalmatian because it confirmed information you already had. The odds of the Lab being in front of you when your daughter is reading that book are actually the same as the Dalmatian, but the Dalmatian had preselected relevance.

WTF FTW! One of their earliest protests, right after Obama took office in January 2009, was regarding an 18% tax NY state wanted to impose on non-diet soft drinks. They were all about unfair taxation to begin with. And they didn't like Bush's TARP or Obama's stimulus bill, but shortly after protesting both of those, they got an influx of money, advisers and media coverage thanks to Fox. From then on in everything was Obama's fault and they even criticized income tax in April 2009, even though for most of them Obama had lowered taxes on income. Later they moved to attack Obama's health plan and they've been focused on that and privatizing Medicare ever since.

Science and religion are tools, used for different purposes. One attempts to explain the natural world, the other the supernatural.

Here's a study on highly active anti-retroviral therapy.

What I question is if an 11-year-old child is capable of consent to a potentially dangerous treatment. The law already says he's incapable of consent to have sex, so why is this any less of a consent issue? This is offset by the evidence of what happens during puberty to a transgender child. It's already an emotional roller-coaster going through it with the body changes your gender is supposed to have, and there are significant dangers in going through it with the wrong ones. Here's a good discussion piece from the AMA on Suppression of Puberty in Transgender Children. The problem is not the parents, imo. It's not Fox News. It's not even what topless dancers teach their kids (unfounded speculation or not). It's the intervention in an important natural life stage. But the potentially disastrous effects of allowing the natural stage to develop in transgender children seems to warrant some kind of special attention. Postponing surgery until the child is considered more capable of consent seems reasonable in this light.

! Moderator Note The off-topic posts regarding information in names have been split off to here. The idea of replacing transportation infrastructure seems unrealistic. Sure, there may need to be changes, but full replacement? I don't see us getting rid of personal transport anytime soon, even though there are several very efficient maglev systems available. Certainly we'll have to make do with less. I think we have been extremely wasteful because there was no need to achieve maximum efficiency with plentiful fossil fuels. But I think what many people are overlooking is that now we are designing these new, better energy sources (not alternatives, let's stop using that term) with efficiency as a key factor. Vehicle manufacturers can worry less about comfort and safety and focus on battery efficiency and ways to recharge on the go (if cars get any more comfortable we'll fall asleep at the wheel, and without flammable gas and engine fumes, safety is already improved).

Sorry, it's against the rules to just give you those answers. j/k, good luck! I VOTED!!!

I think expansion is used because explosion implies there was something there to explode into.

! Moderator Note Numerology is not accepted science. It has no useful predictive power and borders on superstition. You started this thread to find someone who would verify your math for publication and I think the answer is clear. Your math has been falsified and no one is interested in putting their name on your paper. I'll leave this thread open until Wednesday, then it will be closed.

JohnB, I have to say, I find this absolutely fascinating! I totally understand a lot of what you're saying; nobody wants to help lazy people get ahead. But the nature of this particular protest, as we've been discussing in this very thread, is that it started out kind of vague and uncoordinated, but that has allowed many different groups to identify with it and lend support. It shouldn't be at all surprising that it has attracted a few undesirables. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it also has a few opposition infiltraitors mixed in as well (misspelling intended). But I think you're keying on only the negative aspects and using that to disparage even what is good about this protest. 1) You're complaining that this isn't a major protest. It's a protest started half a world away from you. I was surprised when it spread to other cities in the US, and now you're telling me it only has 70 supporters in Australia (btw, articles like this one suggest the numbers for Oz are in the thousands)?! And I think you're keyed on so many committees for 70 people, but what about the workload those 70 people are sharing? 25 committees isn't outrageous for 70 people who are planning on spreading a movement they hope will encourage tens of thousands. Think about it, you're saying it's stupid for them to anticipate growth. 2) You're complaining that "People should get involved and join and guide the political parties". I think these people ARE getting involved. They certainly aren't sitting in their homes watching it on TV. Perhaps none of the current political parties represent their stance very well. How do new parties start? How can people who aren't keyed into party politics let their representatives know that they are dissatisfied? You seem to be saying that protest is wrong because it doesn't follow the rules. I don't know about Oz, but in the US we have the right to assemble and associate and express ourselves through free speech, we're encouraged by our constitution to do so to influence the way we're governed. We can't always wait until elections to vote in better representatives, especially when the ones we voted in last time are listening to money instead of us. "I can't afford a lobbyist so I made this sign!" 3) You're drawing a generalization between protesters and cults because their tactics look the same. Tell me you don't see the same thing happening in any other group formations in our society. Clubs, associations, even businesses use team spirit and controlling tactics to affect the way the individual sees the group. As you say, these tactics work, whether you're whipping your teammates into a winning frenzy, focusing your protestors into a chanting force, or honing your workforce into a cohesive unit of efficiency and profit.

Here's the proper format: (and it's OK that rktpro took the initiative; it shows that you guys care ) Please read the list below carefully, and re-read your post before posting it. In this thread, you are allowed to nominate one member for each of the following six categories: Most Helpful Member: who gives the best answers in the nicest way? Most Knowledgeable Member: who displays the most consistent knowledge in any (or many) fields? Most Interesting Member: who's posts are a must read for their diverse content? Best Debater: the member who you think uses the best debating techniques on the forums. Most Enjoyable Member: this is a fun category; who makes you laugh the most? Most Improved Member: who has improved their quality of posts the most in the past twelve months? The Rules You are allowed to nominate one, and only one person for each category. Your last post on this thread will be counted as your nominations; any previous posts will be deleted. Even so, please try and get it right the first time. Please do not nominate any members of staff or resident experts. If you do so, then these will be deleted. This is all about you guys in the community. Here is the Staff List - To clarify, this is Administrators, Super Moderators, and Resident Experts. Please, reply to this post with the following format: Quote 1. Member name 2. Member name 3. Member name 4. Member name 5. Member name 6. Member name Each member name corresponds to the appropriate category. Be careful not to mix them up, because we won't know and don't have the time to check! If you don't know how to format your post like this, then look at the BBCode Guide before you post. Any posts not of this form will be deleted. The mods will hopefully show no mercy on this point, since I have to go through all of these posts at the end of the day. You are allowed to nominate one person for up to two different categories. You are not allowed to nominate yourself. If, for whatever reason, you do not wish to nominate somebody for a particular category, then please leave that name blank. However, you must submit a nomination for at least one category. This thread will remain open until the 2nd November 2011. After that, no more nominations will be accepted. Nominations must have made at least 5 posts in the time since the last nominations closed.

No, no, you don't get to bob and weave on me about this. You said, "This I doubt as I am sure that if the ancients wanted to build anything to reach the sky, they would have started on a high plateau and not in the low lands." I pointed out the actual scripture, what is written in the Bible. It IS the word of God, it's right there. The fact that you and I don't believe in the God they're talking about is irrelevant in this instance. The book claims they built the tower on the plains to reach the heavens. Period. You don't have to believe in it to acknowledge what it says. Don't put words in other people's mouths. I don't want to hear what you think a theist would say. I want to hear what you say. This is a good moment for a "mwahahaha!" All the more reason for you to stay focused and positive. Now you're telling me what I think? Angels, that's what I thought. But apparently it's not so iron-clad. Some people think it's the trinity. Others say it's the third person perfect. Generalizations are always bad.

Perhaps this is the start for a new thread, but which do you think would be more effective, 1) pushing this large agenda with many points in it and hope you get at least part of it, or 2) focusing on corporate regulation reform, winning that and then using the positive momentum to move to the next item you want fixed? I'm not following you. Breaking up the huge amount of work to be done for a major protest requires exactly this kind of effort and organization. Is it just because you disagree with their goals? How would you do this more effectively, if it were something YOU believed in? Corporations aren't bad, but they are focused on one thing. When they ran out of ways to cut costs, they turned to the regulations that were costing them money. They crunched the numbers and found it cheaper to hire lobbyists to affect the regs. But a lot of the regs protect people. We need them back again. Corporations are necessary but not at the cost of what they're doing to make more money. We're way past defending a line we don't want crossed. We need to penalize the corporations and send them back fifteen yards for unnecessary roughness. Hey, a football metaphor!

Costs on a factory unit like that would be hard to calculate without knowing where it's being built. What country are you doing the research for?

Oddly enough, I think it was the acquisition of wealth that caused our society to turn sex into an bad thing. Go back far enough and I'm sure early humans didn't even realize that sex was responsible for children being born. It probably took a little longer for them to realize that children were a mixture of two parents. It's not uncommon for nomadic cultures to ignore monogamy in favor of sharing pleasure among groups. Such cultures would have little use for the ownership aspect of marriage. Then came ownership of land and acquisition of wealth. Birth proved who the mother of a child was, but who was the father? Men didn't want someone else's offspring to inherit their wealth, so they began devising ways that gave them assurance that women weren't being impregnated by anyone else. Marriage, vows, stories about women being created to serve men, horrible punishment for women who strayed, slaps on the wrist for men. Now there are no negative words for men who enjoy sex and no positive ones for women who enjoy it. Sex is a conquest for men and the best that can be said about women who submit is that they're "easy". I guess it's no wonder we consciously and unconsciously want to protect our children from such unfairness.

Right in the concept, not even wrong in the execution. +4

Couple this with the fact that DARPA pulled that exoskeleton suit page from their website and you've got yourself a Class A conspiracy thriller going. Next there will be a rash of unexplained disappe

But arguments can be made that use more than personal feelings and speculations. There are real reasons why unchecked sexual access to children is harmful in our present society. And there are real reasons why our present society has a negative view of sex in general. If I've stifled the discussion with my comments, I apologize. It was not my intent to scorn anyone.