Phi for All

Do all physicists make Snark-y references? What if we resurrect the Religion forum and make it where you have to ask for permission to post in it, and no one with an agenda will be allowed. So if you ask for permission, you obviously have an agenda, so....

It's a government thing, a major secret. A Major Major Major Major secret.

I think it's more of a farm reference. Have you ever not grown alfalfa?

That's a strong, no-nonsense argument and I really like the strategy. Unfortunately, many conservatives see healthcare reform as helping people whose lifestyles they disagree with. I think they see it as too much leveling of the playing field, and so they'll never be moved to make it easier for the indigent sick to be healthy. Kudos to Representative Grayson for a big brass pair.

Intuition and speculation will only get you as far as the first step of the scientific method. If you skip any of the steps in the process and rely on intuition alone to tell you you're right, then you aren't doing science.

Several FOX News memos have shown that they often aim their negative research at liberal targets, which they don't do with conservative ones (and do the opposite with positive research). Is that rational for a "news organization", whether they find something or not? And too often, if they don't find anything, they can always say they're investigating, which to some FOX News viewers means it's a forgone conclusion.

I'd say it *can* be society's job, it that's what society chooses. That's my argument for universal health care in a nutshell. It's certainly not a right, but we can choose to cover everyone if we feel we're worth it. We've advanced far enough to make it a reality in many cultures. I actually watched the first part of the video (just the first jumper, I really didn't want to view the trauma). I had a completely different idea of what they were doing when I posted the first time. This didn't seem excessively dangerous, but as has been said, one little slip and it's all over. There's a place I go walking near my home where the sidewalk briefly borders a busy street, and if one weren't paying enough attention or tripped or turned an ankle, you'd be run over before you could roll out of the way. I walk that path several times a week and I know I have to be extra careful, but it could still happen.

Oh yes. Many people hope what they suspect is true, and when they find out it is, then they can say they knew it was true.

A new electron beam device uses metal feed stock to create parts without molding or cutting. From the article: "The beam melts the wires and applies them carefully on top of a rotating plate to build an object up slowly, layer by layer." This is a huge step for space travel, but it also gives us a great short-term reason to invest in space stations and moon bases for manufacturing satellite and rocket parts. Very exciting!

Ooooh, well said! Yes, and probably feeling insecure due to the size of that snake on the woman's stomach. I think it's weird that Americans want to preserve the chastity of their women but it's the brandishing of the male genitalia that gets harsher ratings in movies. Or do they think that parading the python is going to put prurience in the place of purity in the minds of the ladies?

... plus the shame of having it displayed on each post, which just causes people to leave, essentially banning themselves. Most everything can be handled in-thread, imo, but that takes vigilance on everyone's part, not just the staff.

They already have an infraction system as a disciplinary measure. The reputation system is supposed to be for the community to have an influence on posters.

It was more a commentary on FOX News viewers. FOX has the highest ratings, and I don't think a lot of their viewers watch anything else, and they definitely don't bother to go back and check through the archives. So each new distortion is just fresh gospel to the exclusive FOX viewer. I know several people like this. It's a "mistake" when a FOX reporter contradicts himself or misrepresents a story, but it's a "lie" if anyone else does it.

Ah, the key to FOX News ratings.

I didn't watch the video. I'm assuming bascule is asking whether it's better to use the medical/insurance system resources to rescue someone who was purposely and enthusiastically risking their life. Unfortunately, because of his age, I'd have to say that I'd vote to save him if possible. If an adult did something like that, I'd have to say forget him if there are others you could save with those resources. If the poor kid was in the US, his insurance company would probably see it as a no gainer and dock him for the half mil, based on a pier-existing condition.

I used to sell a radiant barrier for home attic insulation, and it was nothing more than reflective foil sandwiching a mylar center (the plastic kept the two sheets of foil from touching and conducting heat). We were told that (back then) this was how spacesuits were designed (but with several more layers). I wonder how the results of the experiment would be if you simply wrapped a plastic bottle with aluminum foil (try not to wrinkle it too much), then did a layer of clear plastic wrap (Glad wrap), then another of tinfoil, more clear wrap and so on, until you have 7-10 layers? This would probably be the easiest and cheapest method if it worked well. You'd need to pay close attention to the mouth and lid, making sure they had just as much insulation.

"Splashing" from a faucet into a bucket of water implies water pushing water out of the bucket to fall to the ground. Evaporation is air vaporizing water out of the bucket, to travel generally upwards. If a splash doesn't splash *on* something, can it still be called a splash?

If there's no trick with the stream, I'm going to say that the bucket will fill faster if you hold it stationary, simply because you are creating air current by moving the bucket up and down, and that is going to cause a tiny extra amount of evaporation.

By "stream", do you mean the jet of water coming from the faucet or a small river near the faucet?

This is a big part of the problem. The adviser wasn't talking about "drugs", he was talking about cannabis and LSD being being less harmful than alcohol. Just two "drugs", but suddenly people start talking about making "drugs" legal and that, rightly, freaks them out. I would oppose simply legalizing cocaine or heroin, but there is enough evidence that suggests cannabis can be legalized without more adverse affects than keeping it illegal would have.

Never use generalities when talking about experiential evidence. It only seems like it always happens every time. I think this is partly true, but I think it's the motion of someone turning their heads that catches our peripheral vision. When they turn their heads to look somewhere else, we don't register it as deeply as when we detect that movement and then catch them looking at us. It could have to do with an aggression reaction as well. There are dominant animals that consider looking them in the eyes a challenge to their authority, and will display heavy aggression. Maybe that's what we're unconsciously scanning for.

What a horrible suggestion! And you're the only one who made it. I advocate legalizing only cannabis in the US, and I don't use it anymore. Why are you strawmanning the whole position by suggesting that everyone should use *all* drugs?

I have a Cricket TXTM8 my latest contract provided, and it's a pretty good smartphone. Runs about US$160, has everything you listed and then some. I think any phone you get these days is going to satisfy your list, just make sure they don't give you a skimpy battery and you should be OK.

As a science adviser to the government, I applaud Prof. Nutt's willingness to speak the truth rather than peddle the government line. Advisers should not me "yes men". Your list points are either subjective or could be directly related to the illegal nature of cannabis. How much of the paranoia, mood swings and disengaging are because you are doing something that could get you busted? And I know plenty of people who are not lazy when under its effects. I also think cannabis is probably not a drug many people starve their children over, that sounds like the hard stuff, and legal competition would probably bring prices down. As has been said already, the point is not whether cannabis and LSD should be legal, it's that they are not as bad for you physically as alcohol. And that's been tested scientifically.

Is your friend named "homework"?