Phi for All

If the taxpayers bail them out, I want us to be able to review all patents they hold to see if they've been suppressing any technology that could help.

I think the oil and gas industry should bail them out, as a favor for not turning electric sooner.

I don't know about the names, but Julio sounds a bit greedy. Is he thinking he only needs one schmuck to make it big? I heard where spammers can make US$7K a day on just one successful hit per 12.5M emails. Julio could probably increase his odds by targeting... you know, email addy's from New Jersey. I also find it interesting that insane_alien visits Vegas and then gets pegged as a guy from Jersey. Were you doing your Tony Soprano impersonation? That would make everything about Julio Fernando's email click.

It sounds like it. Too long a road to start snapping now. The "i guess it was too hard for you to figure out" comment seemed a bit out of character for you. But not for a sleep-deprived, high-octane, pre-med test junkie. Grats on the scores, it's a shame we didn't have a chem guru lurking at the same time you posted, but that happens on a discussion forum. Very little instant gratification. You deserve a night out, or maybe a night's sleep.

We will now be using people who don't punctuate instead of animals for such testing.

Too much studying makes you cranky, doesn't it?

pioneer, do you type in one language, use a translator to convert to another language, and then have *that* translated into English?

Taken in context, being open-minded in science is a willingness to be shown a new path that may lead to a new destination, or provide a better route to a familiar place. But no scientist should ever allow themselves to be blindfolded while their guide drags them along extolling the virtues of the new path.

And now there's a brand new sticky, *above* the Banned/Suspended Users, inviting newcomers to Introduce Themselves. Good idea marnixR, good suggestion Klaynos, and I am now officially the Good CopTM.

If you're new to SFN, please take the time to go to our Official "Introduce Yourself" Thread and give us a bit of information about yourself. We'll enjoy our discussions with you more if we know more about you.

The cat is at the top of my list of suspects.

I just think it's defeatist to call any vote "wasted". I agree that the plurality system is imperfect, especially for a country as diverse as the US, but I think the more people believe their vote is "wasted" if their candidate doesn't win, the fewer people will vote in the first place.

I understand that marnixR joined mainly on your recommendation, Ophiolite. I'm willing to entertain any suggestions that bring you here more often. I like that idea, Klaynos. So much so that I'm requesting your salary be doubled. I had completely forgotten that posts in Announcements go through a moderation queue, to make sure no one is "announcing" their new take on special relativity, or that their left leg length has caught up with their right. It would be disheartening for a newbie to make their first post and have to wait while we repressive Moderators approve their message. We'll probably go with what our Physics Expert tells us would conserve angular momentum (which is forum code for "extra work for the Mods").

New terrorist profiling at the airports: anyone with a baked potato or a lobster bib gets wrestled to the ground immediately.

I'd find it hard to sleep with one of those police things around my ankle. How do you manage?

It wouldn't hurt to move the Introduce Yourself thread into Announcements, I suppose, and sticky it above Suspended Users. We just put IY in GD because it seemed friendly, plus I believe there are some directions when you join that link you to it. But I think anyone who would peruse our list of Banned/Suspended Users first and assume we were repressive is either a) too sensitive to discuss science, b) not reading the reasons behind the suspensions, or c) worried they'll shortly find themselves on that list. I'll check the links to Introduce Yourself and if the Admins don't mind, I'll move it to Announcements. Good suggestion, marnixR, I hope it encourages newcomers to begin their relationship with SFN on a happy note.

It's a shame you feel we're on opposite "sides". It's a shame you feel your vote didn't count. It's a shame you feel exercising your right to vote is a waste of time.

If he'd stated it as a prediction or a probability I wouldn't have said a thing.

Assuming something will be the same because it's been that way before is a poor basis for the definitive statements you've made.

We've decided you don't deserve a liberal education. Dems need to understand that while caring that people's basic needs are met, too much caring is not good. And Reps need to understand that the greatest country on earth needs to include some social awareness in their small government. There is no definition of liberal I can find anywhere that implies an excess. It can mean "broad-minded", it can mean "tolerant", it can mean "a great deal", but nowhere is it supposed to mean "too much".

Wow. Dude, I hope you didn't mean this the way it sounds. Do you feel the same way about classes in school that you don't identify with? I don't think this is about legislating pride, it's about well-rounded learning. What you take away from any experience is your own affair, but the idea is to be exposed to a broad array of opportunities for growth. Again, I think the mandatory angle is all POV. If you key on the "forced" part of anything, you're going to be an unhappy camper.

You're weird in that you're consistent. I know quite a few Republicans who've been trying to juggle the Reagan/Evangelical/Neocon jumble unsuccessfully for the last 12 years. It leaves little room for a consistent, rational approach to politics. I can really respect that. This is exactly what I wanted to get at with my question to Riogho, but you phrased it much better than I would have. Very well said.

Riogho, do you consider yourself a platform Republican? I'm seriously curious about the dilemma I proposed in post #7 about the Reaganites. Trickle-down actually isn't horrible in practice (though it always made me shudder as a concept), but Reagan probably never figured so many jobs would go overseas, hobbling the effectiveness of the economics. You've made your feelings known about the Evangelicals. How do you feel about the Neo-conservatives? Do you think the party has been splintered by these seemingly conflicted agendas? It certainly lead to some weird objections to Obama. He was simultaneously called an Islamic sympathizer, a communist, an atheist, a socialist, and a fascist in addition to being a liberal Christian Democrat.

I feel the Republican frustration. I felt the same way about the Dems eight years ago. I'm looking for Obama to move closer to the center and help the Dems remain that way. How can the Reaganites (a segment of the Reps I actually respect) get their smaller government when the Evangelicals want the government to legislate how Americans conduct their personal lives? How do Reaganites deal with the Neocons suddenly wanting to police the world? Here in Colorado, an Evangelical attempt to amend our constitution to define life from the moment of conception was defeated by over 75%. Remember that until Obama, CO was a red state overall. This means that even platform Reps found the Evangelical approach too heavy-handed. Tying McCain to Bush was a winning strategy for Obama '08. I think Obama '12 will have no problem tying Palin to multiple distasteful things.

The only semi-good argument I've ever heard for keeping the separate commands is security, but I never bought into it. A unified command should actually be better at keeping the lid on secrets than a compartmentalized one (less lips sinking ships). What we get with compartmentalization is commands sometimes working at cross-purposes and rivalry for attention, funding and support. Kennedy's SecDef, Robert McNamara, squashed the proposal by Symington's group back in the 60s because he had no practical defense experience (he'd been prez of Ford Motor Co, where he'd conceived the Mustang) and relied heavily on the JCS advice not to do anything too radical. He adapted his office to oversee a single defense policy but left the organizational structures of the four branches intact. I'm just arguing that we need to drop the compartmentalization. It isolates too many administrative decisions and dissociates what should be a fighting force with a common overall objective. The sailors and the air jockeys and the grunts can still get in fights in bars over who is better, but everyone will benefit from having just one big old roll of red tape instead of four. Everyone except the old guard who will argue about tradition, that is.