Phi for All

It would be easy to imagine immortality as being able to rapidly regenerate each cell in our body instead of forming scar tissue. Teeth would grow back, severed digits and limbs would regenerate, there would be no disease because each organ could simply grow back new and shiny. Could we assume that you would pretty much stop aging once you'd reached your full growth (around 18 for women, 20 for men)? The only way we could die is through catastrophic means like decapitation, being blown up or drowning. I actually think this would make us value life more because there would be more to lose. I think laws regarding weapons that could cause catastrophic injury would be more strictly enforced. Isn't that strange to think, that since life is less than 100 years, it's OK to be reckless with it, but if we were immortal, well, that's different, it would really be worth something then.... So I think I'll go with happier, since aging and medical problems would be a couple of big things less to worry about. You'd have to add more sad for not being able to have as many children, unless immortality could help us develop off-planet exploration more rapidly.

As I mentioned before, why wouldn't the auto makers want better fuel efficiency so their cars would be cheaper to run, leading to more use, leading to more sales? Gas prices have been considered high for the last 40 years, ever since the 1973 Oil Crisis in my experience.

What if the majority of the people aren't made aware of the progress? From The Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2010/10/invention_secrecy_2010.html

Well, as I said, my only arguments are ones that are tough to back up. The relationship between auto makers and oil producers seems like a no-brainer on the surface, but the auto makers want cheaper fuel so people use their cars more, and the oil producers know they are working with a diminishing supply, so high prices (but not too high) are their best friend. I acknowledged this in the opener. And when you add in the fact that intellectual property is ignored by some countries, it makes it even tougher to use standard business models to be successful in electronics technology. I agree that the suppressors of innovation are taking a very short view. I also think that some of the larger corporations are able to sidestep the normal laws of the free market; they are fully capable of mounting campaigns that make the majority believe they need what that corporation has decided it wants to sell. Although, I have to say, it has been interesting to see consumer reaction to the amount of effort and money the entertainment and electronics industries have put into Blu-ray. It shows that we have all been burned before and are a bit wiser for it. Again, though, let's not forget how politics, possibly being used by corporate special interests, plays a part in consumer ignorance. When math and logic fail, political candidates can always be counted on to turn it into a partisan thang.

Seriously though, after 100 years, ways to improve fuel efficiency and emissions together haven't progressed proportionately? I realize I'm arguing from incredulity here, but why wouldn't that happen? More efficient burning of fuels would seem to lead to both added economy and less emissions. There's no doubt that the overall integrity of the vehicles have progressed immensely in the last 100 years. I think that's what makes the lack of progress in fuel efficiency stand out all the more. There's another question for you: is it consumer demand for cheaper products, or is it manufacturer ability to make a product that costs half to make but sells for only one-third less? The factory outlet model suggests that you can manufacture to a certain price point while gaining more profit by marketing to people who think they re getting huge discounts. And I didn't say the companies were greedy. The model demands that as companies grow, they take on investors who need to see a return, and any time a company changes hands there needs to be more money that comes from somewhere to bridge the gaps. When a company goes public, stockholders need to see dividends and that money has to come from a variety of different strategies. But that's just business. What I'm trying to get at is where do you draw the line? Consumers should be responsible for demanding something better than a light bulb that heats the house more efficiently than it lights it. We should be smart enough to realize that something that lasts ten times longer is well worth three times the price. But what can we do when corporations have the political and media power to keep us in the dark about technology that might mean more efficiency at less cost to us? The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 lets Congress and the military, through the Patent and Trademark Office, decide that an invention is against the interests of national security. The law is so broad and powerful that it can effectively require that no mention is ever made of the request for patent, not just the parts that are deemed dangerous. It's been claimed that this law has been used to suppress inventions that would increase fuel economy in internal combustion engines (and the law is applicable since the military uses IC engines), but those claims can't be verified for the above mentioned reasons. Apparently, a current list of technology areas used to screen patent applications for restriction isn't publicly available, even under the Freedom of Information Act. It could even be argued that any invention which would adversely affect existing markets and thus upset the economy could be construed as against the interests of national security. As we see corporate personhood gain more prominence in political affairs, and knowing that the US has made use of the military to further business interests in the oil industry, as well as having evidence that competing technology has been purchased and suppressed to support current profit centers, is it farfetched to think we are a bit bogged down with "business as usual" in favor of more efficient uses for our resources?

I'm sorry, when I said, "I would check into those laws if you haven't already", I meant "If I were you, I would check into those laws (if you haven't already)". Lazy grammar and punctuation on my part. I'm not comfortable with advising you on German revenue requirements. You should be able to ask an adviser at your school for some suggestions on how to proceed.

There are thousands of examples where innovation has been suppressed, or durability has been compromised, to maintain profitable business. We've used the highly inefficient incandescent light bulb for over one hundred years (90% of its energy goes to heat instead of light). The 1908 Ford Model T got 25 mpg and a hundred years later the average gas mileage is worse: 21 mpg. Plastics and other materials have been reduced in strength in order to decrease product lifetime and increase repeat purchases. Planned obsolescence limits the product lifetime where weakening the structure is impractical. Often politics is used to insure that inefficient methodology is adopted, like using corn to produce ethanol as a fuel additive. Patents are purchased so the technology can be suppressed, like Chevron's purchase of NiMH battery technology from General Motors (they promptly mired the patents in multiple corporate purchases and lawsuits, insuring that no one dares to go anywhere near making an electric car with it again). A goal of some businesses is to research, develop and manufacture a product/service that consumers want. Once you've done that, you work to recoup your expenses and minimize your costs. Once established, the last thing you want to do is change anything so you incur more costs that have to be recouped. Other than for growth (manufacturing more of the same product), innovation seems to be anathema to this kind of business model. On one hand, efficient design and use of resources wars with free market profits and consumer choice. On the other hand, with today's fast-paced technology, it's often difficult to bring a product through R&D and manufacturing and thus to market when competitors can easily build on the work you've done and trump you in the marketplace. And how much effort can you put into a great new piece of computer hardware knowing that it will most likely be archaic in a couple of years? Untold amounts of money have been spent on advertising designed to make us discontented with what we have in an effort to get us to make purchases sooner than necessary. Psychological obsolescence is pervasive, and while it can be argued that we are free to make our choices, how can we possibly not fall prey to such massive efforts to manipulate our minds? I've seen well-used products made from plastic in the 1950s that are still functional today and look like the day they came off the assembly line; not even any scratches on them, still bright and colorful. These items weren't terribly expensive to purchase in their day, and it seems like over time plastic items have gotten dramatically weaker without being dramatically cheaper. Would our economy have been broken if many products rarely had to be replaced or would we have come up with other things to use our resources for? What's more important? Efficient use of resources and unbridled innovation, or maintaining the economy and allowing business to thrive using proven methodologies?

! Moderator Note Topic moved to Computer Help from Science Education. You will be more likely to receive notice regarding IT services here. Congratulations on having the foresight to start this now. I have no doubt you will be successful if you continue to think ahead like this. I'm not sure what the laws are in Germany regarding starting a business. In the US, I could start a sole proprietorship without even registering, as long as I paid my taxes. I would check into those laws if you haven't already. In these economic times, many small to mid-sized companies can't afford to have full-time IT personnel on the payroll. You might want to start with those types of companies and see if they are looking for IT help on an as-needed basis. This flexibility might also fit well with your student status.

Cool! Good to know. Thanks, StringJunky. Unfortunately, it looks like having a second (and possibly third) battery to swap out is just as important with Li-ion. Curse you, consumer economy!

Welcome to SFN, and thanks for starting this thread. I think we're still within established science here so far, but if we start to get off the proven track and into speculations (which are very good things, don't get me wrong), I may have to move this to the Speculations section. But wave/particle duality has been documented repeatedly. It's not really called a "belief". Dimensions give perspective, allowing us to plot the structure of what we perceive in the universe. One dimension is a line, two dimensions is a plane, and three dimensions is a cube. Add time as a temporal dimension for movement and we can know where we are within the universe. Are you referring to the multiverse hypothesis, where multiple parallel universes exist?

Agreed. It doesn't matter whether it was a good or evil choice. It matters that God said not to do it, there will be a certain consequence. It doesn't even matter that the consequence wasn't what God said it would be, the fact is that they knew there was a consequence, they did it anyway and were punished for it. God could have killed them both, since death was the consequence He warned of. Banishment could be construed as merciful comparatively. Courts often decide to reduce sentences to incarceration instead of death when premeditation can't be proven, since you bring up secular law (which you shouldn't, since secular laws vary by society, and what is considered just by some is barbarism to others).

The difference is perceptual, and may vary between societies. In the US we may judge a person insane if they suddenly leave their job and family to wander around in the desert, but aboriginal Australians call that "walkabout" and consider it a perfectly sane rite of passage. In the end, I suppose we judge the difference by how much of a danger one is to oneself or others. The actual "line" between sanity and insanity is a purple one, painstakingly woven from lint I found stuck to some tape that held my copy of Animal Farm together, and carefully dyed with a Sharpie marker my aunt Dorothy gave me for Christmas in 1969.

How is this inconsistent with free will? They made a free-willed choice to do something God had told them not to. It's more of a consequence than a punishment. As to the rest, I always fall back to more basic points. If God is omniscient, then He knew ahead of time that Adam and Eve would partake of knowledge, yet still He calls it the original sin and judges their descendants to be flawed. Matthew 7:2 tells us we'll be judged as we judge others, so are God's ancestors to blame for the way we turned out?

I've heard this as well, and try to do this at all times. This one I haven't heard, and seems impractical. My laptop stops charging when it gets to full, and won't start recharging until it drops to about 95%. If I mouse over the battery icon when it's full, it says "plugged in, not charging". I think it's safe to assume that battery life would not decrease if there is no charging activity going on, even though the laptop and battery are both plugged in. What StringJunky says about the heat and recharging from zero makes a lot of sense. Practically, though, when I run on battery, I run it down until I'm prompted that I need to find an AC source soon. That's probably just what the manufacturers want so they can sell you a new battery. I'm going to start trying not to let the battery level get below 20% before recharging.

A report that led directly to the manufacture of Accutane, a medication for teens with severe acne which can also cause depression.

Please don't "cut and paste quote" something without adding your own thoughts. While not exactly against the rules, we'd much rather discuss things with members rather than authors who can't respond.

Do your friends understand that a wave, any wave, doesn't really carry much water with it? A tsunami that started off the coast of Africa would not be carrying any water from Africa by the time it reached North America. It wouldn't shift a massive amount of water from there to here. The force propagates from water molecule to water molecule and it's the force that travels, not the water itself. When the force reaches land, the friction with the sea bed will raise the height of the wave and cause it to crest. That is where the extra water that pushes inland comes from.

! Moderator Note Your three threads titled, "'MOND', Prelude to 'Critique of the Universe'", et al, have been merged into one topic. Please don't start multiple threads on the same subject as it makes it difficult to discuss.

lol, MRBEAST in this stie. Come wallow with us!

Food is a consumable product. It's perfect as a for-profit commodity. No one is going to cancel your food while you're still willing to pay for it. No more red herrings, please. And the goalpost is health insurance, not "Health Care".

I agree with most of this, and would add the interstate highway system. Not that it's a problem now, but I think it should be on a list of things better not privatized. And I'd love to put the public utilities back in the hands of the municipalities, or perhaps the states. But we digress.... But they can if the coverage isn't through an employer. And the fact that they can in ANY circumstance is unreasonable. How long will it be before they can deny cancer coverage because you've used antiperspirants containing aluminum? OK. Meaning I, as an individual, have to play roulette with my health, trying to decide what kind of ill-health bet I should cover at any given time. An insurance program that isn't run for profit wouldn't care if you already had a problem. It's insurance for your health, something that is relatively difficult to predict on an individual basis, but is fairly reliable statistically when applied to a society of hundreds of millions. It's only called Obamacare by those who don't like it or the president. It's an attempt to link the two as bad ideas. And yes, the current health care reform isn't what I'm asking for here, so yes, it would need to be repealed. I'm not going to follow the red herring swimming into the flood zone. I will simply repeat that I would prefer my risk-pool clear and clean of for-profit motives. There is nothing about the for-profit motive that makes a risk-pool safer, better or more efficient. The opposite is true, in fact, when health care is what the pool is for Government and union workers set the bar for what the rest of us make. Without their competitive compensation, we would all be making less. But that's off-topic. And when that expectation is unfulfilled, all insurance gets a bad name. This is a big reason why some people avoid it, or don't consider it essential. The CEOs don't think so. They pilot the corporation, and their primary loyalty is to the board of directors who represent the stockholders. Medicare gets scammed much more than private insurers. Double billings, fraudulent claims, non-existent or deceased patients. And when you add in all the patients who were dropped from coverage (2.7M in 2008, and those don't get counted as "denied claims"), then YOUR claim is denied. Medicare does NOT deny more service requests, and it never drops coverage to legitimate patients. You're moving the goalposts. I asked for a not-for-profit alternative run by the federal government. People who want "different sizes" are free to choose them. I'm only suggesting a not-for-profit competitor.

Creationism is a big part of why there is an anti-science political climate in the US. It's not off-topic to talk about creationism. As I said before, creation in a religious sense is NOT a scientific topic. Creationism is different, it's a literal interpretation that claims the Earth is only 6000 years old, and that's something that science has buildings full of evidence against. You can believe that God created the universe. You can believe the Bible is the word of God. But you can't show scientifically relevant evidence that the world is only 6000 years old. Many have tried and it's all been refuted.

! Moderator Note Personal attacks are against the rules and won't be tolerated. This is not your first warning.

I'm talking about a health insurance program you could either get independently or through your employer, so it costs no more to people and employers than is currently being paid. No increased taxes. If organizing it by state is deemed more cost-effective or more fair to varying cost-of-living structures, I wouldn't mind that. I'm sure there would be some federally-mandated rules, such as the not being turned down for pre-existing conditions clause. I think, at least in the beginning, this program would be available to all who could pay into it. I want it modeled as much like a for-profit health insurance company as possible, so no one could claim it wasn't as good. People who can't afford insurance might be able to afford this because I would hope the premiums would be lower due to it's not-for-profit structure. If they can't afford it, they can't afford it. I don't see why more expensive private insurance companies can't service those customers. That's what I assume people who want private rooms and exclusive perks have now. I'm not looking to disturb that, I just want an alternative for the masses that is not profit oriented. Before managed health care, insurance companies based your rates on the age at which you joined their program. Actuarial tables told them what to charge and if you joined young and stayed with the same insurer, your rates were pretty low your whole life. They had loyal customers because if you switched, you paid the rate at the age you switched. There was no mention of pre-existing conditions; the actuarial tables took that into account. It was only when managed health care came about in the 70s that people stopped being loyal and started shopping around for better rates. For a while there was healthy competition, but when insurers realized they were making more money but losing customer loyalty, they came up with this idea of pre-existing conditions to scare people into staying with them. Have you ever tried to get a company you're no longer with to pay for something you had when you were with them? It's a nightmare and there's no good reason for it.