Phi for All

Oh, if only this were true.

We have a thread going on about the UK election. Perhaps this thread should be moved to Politics to see if it gains more attention. Only a real scientist would be smart enough to ask that question.

Since this is a discussion forum, and you do not intend to answer critiques of your work, there is no reason for this thread to remain open.

bositong, since we don't know you at all, I have removed your link. I'm sure you can appreciate the dangers of being taken to strange internet sites. Please feel free to repost your ideas here so we can discuss them in full. Right here. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedDo you have a working prototype, or is this all on paper?

It's probably a little extra bit of marketing, like the way Chapstick dries out your lips so you need to use more of it. *Achooooo*

And now a message from the sponsor of this thread:

I think most would instead say that current political dealings have an aspect of reciprocity that is rather removed from the way most people do things. It has more of an under the table, dirty business feeling to it when a politician has to make so many you-scratch-my-back concessions to get his bill voted for. I don't think every politician is corrupt, but I don't cheat on my wife and taxes either. It's possible for some of them to be immoral people while not being a corrupt politician, but many Americans, possibly the vast majority, find it hard to distinguish the two.

This is the "Earth" Science forum.

But this tells us that the vast majority don't like the way politicians in general operate. I see all of this common ground as a way to start political discussions as if we're climbing a mountain together rather than shooting at each other over a fence. We can choose our own routes to the top but we can all start from the same base camp. Another piece of common ground: the vast majority of people do NOT want to turn the country towards communism. When a program is referred to as "socialized", it simply means that the program is supported by federal tax dollars, like the interstate highway system.

I thought the smiley on the first sentence reflected a similar whimsical approach on the last sentence, tbh. But many politicians do play the beltway games that could make them look corrupt in the eyes of the vast majority. While I don't think all politicians are corrupt, it would be interesting to know if 80% of the population felt that way. It might even make establishing the rest of our common ground more important than ever.

What about regulations? I think the vast majority can agree that we want the government to set some limits that keep us from being poisoned by waste products, but are there any free market types who would argue that if toxins are present in consumer goods, the market and our present laws will self-regulate those products?

I agree, immigration is OK with the vast majority when the immigrants are here legally. It seems clear that few oppose social services for those that really need them, and don't abuse them or use them illegally. People get testy when they think about their taxes paying for someone else to party. It's similar to the outrage you hear about prisoners getting to pump iron and watch cable TV while incarcerated, or politicians using public funds for "junkets" and "fact-finding trips" to exotic places.

I've never encountered a spammer before who wasn't trying to deviously link us to something costly. Imagine, greenspam!

I watched that this morning, based on your recommendation. Roflcopters, that was one of the funniest bits I've ever seen them do!

When it comes to national politics, is there some common ground that the vast majority (say 80-90%) can agree on, and move on from there? I think we spend a lot of time redesigning the wheel when it comes to a great many of these things, arguing without ever recognizing those things that the vast majority probably already accepts. I think most people don't want to deny aid to people who truly need it, but don't want to give tax dollars to those who could help themselves but find excuses not to. Yet both get lumped under the general term "welfare", and I think some people oppose welfare programs because of it. The Interstate Highway system seems like pretty good common ground. I don't hear many people talking bad about having federally funded thoroughfares that bring down transportation costs in a multitude of areas. You might disagree about how it's maintained (I know I do) but in general it seems like the vast majority of citizens benefit from having this program. I would think the vast majority of people want to pay for enough military defense to protect ourselves and our allies if we're attacked. National defense is more complicated, of course, but I'm just looking for common ground (Yes, the vast majority support the troops who are fighting in our defense - can we move on now? Can you stop questioning that?!). Are there any more common ground additions to national defense? Does the vast majority want the capability to retaliate if we're attacked? What other common political ground can you think of?

You don't see a benefit to all to have 60ish people who've worked all their lives be somewhat independent after retirement? Do you see a detriment to all if they weren't?

What would "lived off" have been like without groceries (or the extra money from the pension to pay for groceries)? Your grandmother may have been a better money manager than most, but would she have used that tax money for retirement if it hadn't been mandatory? We Americans do poorly with very small sums of money and very large sums of money, on average. We'll pay $20 for two small drinks and a tub of popcorn at the theater. And believe it or not, many people get insurance proceeds to replace a car or a roof that's been totaled and they freak out at having $15,000 in their hands, so they use it for other things - and then cry when the roof they didn't replace leaks and the insurance company denies their $50,000 claim for water damage. And many do poorly when it comes to balancing immediate needs with long-range savings, especially when the range is 20-30 years down the line. If social security were privatized, how many would squawk if it were made mandatory? I wouldn't trust the first couple of generations of taxpayers to handle their own retirement if it weren't.

I was in a restaurant yesterday when I suddenly realized I desperately needed to pass gas. The music was pretty loud, so I timed my farts with the beat of the music. After a couple of songs, I started to feel better. I finished my coffee, and noticed that everybody was staring at me.... Then I suddenly remembered that I was listening to my iPod.

It could be worse. They could have a kid's book called, "Why Mommy is a Democrat and why Daddy is Wrong".

Eliminating anything completely would be difficult, so we do what we can to eliminate extraneous judgment. Avatars and Usernames are a very simple way of reducing the chances we might be judged unfairly by the way we look or who we are in real life. Suppose this phrase is spoken, by this avatar: "The doom of a nation can be averted only by a storm of flowing passion, but only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others." Great words, and very inspiring. But change the avatar to the man who actually said them, and your judgment of the words changes: "The doom of a nation can be averted only by a storm of flowing passion, but only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others." --Adolph Hitler The words are still inspiring. It's those words that you should be concentrating on, not the person who said them. Hitler may have been a monster, but he said some very inspiring things. The fact that he was who he was doesn't make them less poignant. This is why, in science, we try to reduce the extraneous judgment where we can. In science, things are different. The processes used work well, and we try to emulate and use them whenever possible. If you can't see a reason why your real life and your internet life can't be joined, then you're not being naive. Some people have real concerns and we should respect that.

An obstacle to what? You're already reading what a person has expressed, so why is it necessary to see what they really look like? To my mind, it can only add unnecessary judgment. I know you see it as more personable, like the difference between talking to someone on the phone and seeing them in person, but on many internet forums, especially scientific ones, we try very hard to distance the idea from the person who has the idea just so there is no extraneous judgment involved. One of the worst crimes you can commit here is to attack someone personally rather than their idea. Can you honestly say you would listen to an idea from this person in exactly the same way as this person if you knew nothing else about them, no matter what idea was being expressed? Truly?

I'm always amazed by the number of people who explain that SR is either unreasonable or non-intuitive, and somehow conclude that it is therefore wrong. No one has ever been able to reproduce any experimental results which seem to contradict it, and that's usually enough for most scientists to rely on successful results. For some reason SR, like perpetual motion, seems to draw out those who insist that everything must be intuitive.

Well, we didn't, either time. Not if you really look at the ballot shenanigans in Florida and Ohio. Those were two of the closest and most contested elections we've ever had. Will you vote Lib-Dem, please? I'm going to overdub and whenever anyone says "vote", I'm going to add, "Lib-Dem" after it. I'll definitely make your news.

Then I don't get to vote in the primaries, and I like all the voting I can get. I agree that more than two parties is a waste if the main two are a shoe-in anyway. I just don't like having a fence down the middle when most people on either side have quite a bit in common, often more than their party's platforms will allow. I wouldn't mind an equal third party. Do the Lib-Dems represent a large group in the UK, or is it just a change from the status quo? I'd love to see a third party in the US that was liberal socially and conservative fiscally, with an eye towards efficiency in all levels of government policy.

If you guys could elect a third party, it would really help us throw a shock into the Dem/Rep system we have. Is there anything we can do to help? Do you have the same problem with special interest lobbies that we have? Voters here gripe about the politicians listening to them, but the voters listen to all the special interest spin commercials at election time too.