Phi for All

You lose the bet. So far you haven't said anything outlandish about your goth-ness or your military service. You did make some adamant statements about Capitalism and Communism that I felt needed some perspective, especially when you made them as general statements instead of opinion statements. When someone questions you when you say Capitalism kills, or Communism is the ideal state, why is it an "attack"?

Are we putting the "Capitalism Kills" argument aside or was I able to persuade you away from that stance? I'll assume I got through to you unless you can provide some better examples. Communism, huh? From someone at Offutt AFB? I'll bet you're popular with that view. In case you haven't noticed, we *have* reached space and other planets, and we did it under Capitalism. Communism has failed, as it offers no incentives to exceed what is expected of you. I don't see how you can say Communists don't have to dream, they just "can". And funding was necessary in the Soviet state as well. Communism doesn't mean unlimited wealth, just that the wealth is in the hands of the state, and they decide what gets funding or not.

I used to have one of these, until I broke it. It's made of thin glass, filled with colored ethanol, and when you grab it your hand warms up the fumes from the alcohol and that increases the pressure inside the glass bulb, forcing the alcohol up the tube. When enough of the liquid has filled the top bulb for the tube to be covered, the gas bubbles up through the alcohol and makes it look like it's boiling, but neither the glass or the alcohol gets hot at all. I don't remember what they called it, but I'm sure it had a brand name. The bulb is NOT being squeezed.

It's ethyl alcohol, so the vapor makes it appear to boil. There's no pressure from his hand, it's the heat that increases the air pressure and forces the alcohol up to the other chamber. Can you imagine the lawsuits if kids were supposed to squeeze that thin glass bulb repeatedly?

Then stop buying my crappy toasters and invest your money in my biggest competitor's company.

OVERSIMPLIFY ≠ SIMPLIFY. OK, but you still skewed the analogy by having two identical people apply for the only job in the world. Any system would look bad in that scenario. I don't see how that follows, but OK. But Capitalism isn't measuring your worth by your work. YOU are measuring your worth when you accept the work. No job can be considered beneath you if you decide to take it.

I don't think it has changed in any meaningful way. If you want what I've got and we agree on a price that makes us both happy, win-win. If one of us doesn't agree, and we can move to a market entity that makes us happy (you find someone with a better price or I find a buyer who likes mine), again win-win. It's only when there is no other market entity to turn to that trade is stifled and someone loses. Perhaps what has changed is our idea of "fair". Many people don't think it's fair that someone benefits more than they do. But how are you worse off if you get what you want and I get what I want? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged But the equations are necessary in this instance, and you forgot to balance them by mentioning that McD's doesn't lose money by paying person A for working, because person A sells McD's products, and therefore makes more money for McD's than they pay person A. As long as the public continues to enjoy McD's products, then the public, McD's and person A all benefit. Win-win-win, no one dies (if the public enjoys in moderation, that is). Well, it sounds like you've added some collusion in there, and I warned you that secret deals are one of the things that corrupt Capitalism. If stock inc. has secretly decided they aren't hiring transvestites, they are not playing by the rules. And remember, if stock inc. has the only job left on earth, either Betty or Johnny is going to lose anyway. You've created a False Dilemma where you make Capitalism look bad, but it isn't very realistic at all. Fortunately, you made them cousins so Johnny can take care of Betty and get a Head-of-Household deduction on his income tax. Not really. You just came up with an unrealistic set of circumstances that proves your point. You could do that with anything but it won't give it any more meaning. Just remember to include all parts of the equation. Multiplying by infinity is bound to cause some errors. I've often thought that Capitalism has lead us to the point where our resources are spent on a lot of meaningless tail-chasing. Why do we need 685 companies wasting time and materials making 4250 types of toasters (completely made up numbers, just guessing)? If one company made all the world's toasters in enough variety to satisfy the range of demand, wouldn't that company be able to make them really well and really cheaply? Wouldn't their research and development costs be lower and more concentrated as well? But in order to form a monopoly like that, you'd have to have a government entity step in with regulations that would keep the toaster company from charging whatever they want as the sole supplier. And while toasters aren't that important to me, they are to others. I guess freedom has it's price.

Hi Spam!

That's not how Capitalism is supposed to work. If someone always lost there would be no motivation to continue. It's because everyone along the chain from manufacturer to end-user gains something that the system works. When someone loses it's usually because a collusive deal of some sort has skewed the normal process and created unnatural advantage. Unfortunately, some collusion has been given a patina of lawfulness by calling it a subsidy or a no-bid contract or even a campaign contribution.

One word, merit. Merit and knowledge. OK, two words. Merit, knowledge, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Cap'n. OK, three words.

I don't understand why you think an automated system where bottles stick in carriers designed to have them fall out is a "working system" that "ain't broke". The OP's first and last sentences ask for help with this problem.

There's lots of information about the 3rd challenge. The OP asked about the 4th.

What color did the sky change to? This will tell us what kind of magic she used. But some styrofoam is made from cornstarch and dissolves in water, so your hypothesis has been rejected based on JillSwift's test results. Try again, freshman.

Do you float like a duck if we throw you in the pond?

The undead have no morals to misplace.

I got my pair at his brother's garage sale. He didn't like them because he won so many races no one will talk to him anymore.

I think it was last Sunday, and the challenge was to make an invisible driverless car. Contestants were warned not to tell anyone and the race was held in secret. Nobody saw who won.

I get weather forecasts on my phone, but they aren't accurate enough to predict the time it will rain based on my location and speed. Perhaps this is a corollary to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle; you can know how fast you're going, or where you are, but if you ever figure out both at the same time, it starts raining.

The auto analogy doesn't hold up, mainly because there is a fairly fixed value on a car. You need to fix a value on human life before any general application of risk analysis can be meaningful. There are cases where certain treatments are being downgraded due to risk. I heard on NPR this morning that, in the US, the AMA isn't recommending PAP smears until the age of 21, where previously the recommendation was 21 or 2 years after the onset of sexual activity. Studies have proven that the costs prior to the age of 21 aren't worth the additional risks.

Let's make ydoaPs president then. His campaign slogan can be, "Live long and prosper".

Despockracy?

How practical would it be to cut out and glue some blocked surface rubber sheeting circles to the bottom of your carriers? The raised blocks break the surface tension so the bottles won't hang up. The rubber and the glue you use need to withstand the chemicals and the heat. If rubber sheets/glue won't work, perhaps some kind of stainless steel bolt or screw can be added to the base of the carrier to raise the bottle off the base. It just needs to be raised enough to keep the bottles from resting flat against the base.

Nothing in science is ever set in stone, not even real theories. That's the beauty of it; if some evidence comes along to disprove what's come before, the theory has to change. If it was set in stone, no one would bother looking for new evidence. As far as support goes, every idea needs to start with a speculation and move through the rigorous scientific methodology in order to make a prediction that can be tested. If you can't take your idea through the steps, there is something that makes it supernatural, or outside of what is accepted and observable, makes it unsupported. If that's the case, you have to find a way to make it measurable by science or just accept that it will never be scientifically meaningful.

SFN - 101, Impossible - 0

You miss Indiana, dontcha?