Phi for All

Actually, it's pretty obvious when one's assertions leave the realm of accepted scientific method and need to rely on pseudoscience to support them. I think the membership does a good job with objective critique but we need a process for advancement when someone adheres to method, addresses all concerns and defends their idea rigorously. Despite many assurances, everyone who posts a speculative idea resents the fact that Speculations is in the same sub-forum with Pseudoscience. We've told them often that it's up to them to avoid the latter by staying with accepted method but the stigma persists. I'd like to see the sub-forums split, possibly adding others to allow a thesis to move up or down on a scale of approval based on how well the OP presents the idea. The whole concept might be doomed to fail since most crackpots don't see the point of all the rigor and accuse accepted science of being too hidebound. It's tough to deal with someone who simultaneously believes in thinking outside the box AND doesn't understand that the box is the whole point.

Several years back I talked to a guy who was installing solar panels in small mountain communities and he quoted me his price for a single home. It turns out that for 50% more he could instead set up a community array that would power the whole village. It would definitely pay to look into community efforts for wind and solar.

This one, I believe.

Whining about this slump won't fix anything, and while I don't think we've had it "easy" (in most contexts), I think we've grown complacent about rapid growth and what we're willing to give up to keep it going. I don't think sucking it up and dealing with it are the right thing to do, either. I think now is the time for looking at effective change. I think we're encouraged to whine about the little things so we don't have time to complain about the big things. We whine about partisan politics when we should be complaining about lack of representation. We whine about the price at the pumps when we should be complaining about subsidized markets and technology suppression. And we whine about high prices instead of complaining about the lack of corporate policy governance. It's a lot like the way we practice medicine. The patient whines about his symptoms, and because the doctor knows the patient is too lazy to attack the problem at its root cause, we're given a pill that ensures we'll be happy, we'll stop whining, and we'll be back. I think we need to "man up" and admit that our effectiveness as a superpower is just about over if we don't start keeping better tabs on that effectiveness. Complaints are effective; increase the whining and you just get more pills.

I agree with this, but, while most Americans are probably thinking that offshore drilling will bring prices down, I'm just hoping they don't go up too much more too quickly. I want a price that makes alternatives more attractive without impacting the prices of everything else too heavily, and I want less dependence on oil from questionable sources. And I want a fireman's hat, some LEGOs and a horse; not a pony, a HORSE.

A valid point, and one that is under scrutiny atm. And what was your interpretation of the critique you received on these pages? I don't remember any discussion stalling on the point of, "I don't know where you're wrong because I can't find any fault with your work, but something must be wrong so I'm going to ignore you". We would actually be quite happy with finding no faults in a hypothesis. And I think that's a very weak position. Are you telling me that people critiqued your earlier work and made suggestions on refinement, and now you refuse to show that refined work because you don't think those same people will appreciate that you did as they asked? I just don't get that. While there is no obligation, it certainly is what most people ask from speculative threads, that they show some mathematical rigor in explaining why their ideas merit time spent on analysis. If someone asks you for supporting math and you supply it, I would hope that the person asking will go over it and give you their opinion on it. Please Report a Post that ignores evidence you provided on request.

I just thought of something else. If jellyfish are being scared by the color red, it would have to be at surface depths. Water absorbs red light so at a certain depth red isn't even visible. Maybe the jellies are only affected when they get closer to the surface. Where exactly did you find that jellyfish are scared of red, CrazCo?

Our media loves to tie fears together so they can turn minor stories into major ones, and major stories into super-duper major ones. Most Americans who hear stories about tanker spills are also invited to read about a storm path threatening an offshore oil rig. The comparisons are inevitably made and average Joe Reader makes assumptions that ensure he'll be glued to the next story about oil and tankers and rigs... oh my!

I like Arnold's competitiveness and his commitment to alternative fuels. Though not a scientist himself, he listens to them and feels we're not doing enough to curb emissions and move to alternatives. He's proven that partisanship is far down his list of priorities. And since he has plenty of fame and fortune already, I'm hoping he would rather that history remember him as the guy who helped the US move towards the future rather than the guy who helped us reach status quo... again. My only reservation is that, while I share his socially liberal, fiscally conservative political stance, I haven't seen enough concern with cost-effectiveness in his actions. His insistence on having Tesla Motors manufacture in California seemed to come at a fairly high price incentive-wise and I'm a bit worried that he picked Tesla just because their cars are so sexy. On the other hand, being on the cutting edge can have it's rewards in other non-monetary ways, and just establishing a green and progressive attitude in the population may turn out to be priceless in the years to come.

Some suggestions:1) Please be specific; what grade level are you, what areas are you most interested in, how long do you have to complete the project, what resources do you have? 2) No text speak, please. Be clear in all communications as we have members from around the world who may be able to help if they understand what you're asking. Also, I moved this thread from Suggestions to Homework Help.

Jellyfish have a lot of visual sensors, iirc, and red may be a bit overwhelming to them. I don't know for sure. Perhaps blood in the water is a visual signal for a jellyfish to vacate the area before predators like sharks begin arriving. Red and yellow can sometimes be a signal that an animal is poisonous. I'm not sure if jellyfish need to worry about other sea creature's poison but this could account for the aversion.

How can you write a story with more than one person (or anthropomorphized robots) in it *without* having it comment about society at some point? Like anything brilliantly written and presented, the audience is left to apply whatever symbolism they want to it. That's why some people see homosexuality in all fantasy movies, and others are convinced that science fiction is trying to undermine religion. And it's why still others can read a book or see a movie or hear a song while sneaking glances in a mental mirror to see if what they're experiencing is reflected in themselves. For Daniel Engber at Slate to say that Wall-E was simple minded satire is hypocritical (he probably left Lord of the Rings in a huff because Sam was gay for Frodo). He claims that Wall-E preys on myths about obesity and ignores scientific studies but falls prey to ignorance himself about life on a spaceship and how gravity affects bone mass. He has made the satire simple-minded by being simple-minded in his reaction. I thought the movie's message was to avoid letting others think for you in exchange for comfortable convenience (this proves it's a great movie; so many got so many different things out of it!). And I absolutely came apart when Wall-E tried to show his "directive" to EVA (Extra Vehicular Activity? Brilliant way to prophecy her willingness to break away from her programming). In his enthusiasm, when he strains to crush a cube of waste, he looks just like he's taking a... well, what I think Daniel Engber is full of.

Absolutely NOT, not under any natural circumstances.

How successful have you been with your friend in bringing up scientific facts to argue against his omnipotent God? One could argue that even if the wives of Ham, Shem and Japeth were somehow from other races (which isn't mentioned in the Bible), it would still not be enough to create so many different races, especially with so many today having "pure bloodlines" (don't jump on me, this is not scientific thinking, but a creationist might understand it). Above all, you need to avoid giving your friend the opportunity to end the discussion by playing the omnipotence card. I haven't found much success bringing out scientific facts to argue with someone who is more than willing to dismiss all of science in favor of a deity who can defy physical laws with a thought. Maybe you can get better traction arguing that Noah was a terrible father who used black magic on his son when Ham saw Dad's genitals after Noah had passed out drunk in his tent (or... not). Since Noah lived to be 950 years old and only had three sons, it can be assumed that fertility was not increased with longevity. Ham only had four sons in his lifetime so this is further proof that the generations of the time were not supernaturally prolific (in fact, just the opposite; wouldn't you expect more children in a life of almost a millennium? The average Catholic family outstrips this achievement in mere decades).

Retro-fitting existing buildings with solar panels is one thing, a necessary thing imo, but integrating solar roof sheeting in new buildings is much more efficient in all respects. I realize this is more of a political question, but how does everyone feel about making it mandatory for new buildings to have Built-In Photovoltaic (BIPV) systems? Should this be left to municipalities to adopt as code or should there be a federal mandate?

What a hoot! I have to say though, Middle Eastern ingenuity constantly impresses me. Why fire four missiles when you can fire two and pretend to fire the other two? That's cost-effectiveness. A lot like getting your enemy to spend billions while you buy some VHS tapes and flying lessons.

Since the White House is ordering him not to appear, it seems it's part of executive privilege, since Rove included the President and/or VP in his discussions at some point. I could be wrong but that's what it sounds like.

Does this efficiency offset the billions in subsidies coal receives? Subsidization is allowing most coal burners to stick with antiquated processes, like simply building higher smokestacks so the locals are less impacted. I'm tired of subsidies that sound like healthy initiative, but in practice enable corporations to avoid searching for more efficient ways of doing business. Without these government incentives, and with some teeth to the regulations we need for long-term success, techniques like IGCC will become necessary instead of just mandatory.

I reluctantly have to agree with this stance. I suppose it's like a top-flight, board-certified surgeon standing idly by while some medieval barber puts leeches on a patient who's appendix has burst. If anyone has the technology to keep environmental impact to a minimum, it's US. I would want to make sure our regulations haven't been too severely compromised over the last twenty years before we just turn the drillers loose. An EPA with teeth would be necessary, imo.

This was my first thought too. Especially after seeing the scale (I was originally thinking balance like Cap'n). "I'm gonna put all these bottles on here to be weighed... one at a time!" Since you can't possibly pick one bottle from ten by weight in one weighing, and I assume that you won't be able to tell if one bottle weighs 100 grams and another weighs 110 grams just by the feel of it, the poison part must come into play somehow. I had almost written that off as a red herring, since self-testing seemed ill-advised. But is the poison a lethal one? If so, is it lethal at any dose? Could I test a fragment of a pill (just crush it with the scale, lol), wait for any ill effect and repeat until there was none, seeing as time is not limited for this experiment?

I think it would be great to end the speculation that is artificially driving up oil prices. I don't know enough about the reserves to know if it would be enough, however. I also want a more scientific look at how offshore drilling would affect the environment. I think the technology has improved since the laws against it were passed, but I'm unwilling to completely trust the word of the companies that will profit most from repealing those laws. We should be able to judge cost-effectiveness with the least environmental impact if we can analyze the practice without profit-drooling or knee-jerk greenthink getting in the way. As far as shale oil goes, I've seen firsthand the scars it leaves in mountain areas, but again, I'd like a neutral look at current technology. The Rocky Mountains are MY backyard, and a national treasure to boot, so this needs careful attention before we forge ahead. As long as we're moving towards more sustainable energy sources, I'm totally willing to continue searching for oil to lessen the impact. I didn't hear Newt mention "clean coal" (I watched the video twice), but I'm a bit worried that this is just a sound byte cooked up by coal producers. I almost donated to the Wetlands Defense Fund once, only to find out it was a group who advocated landowner rights to do whatever the hell they wanted with wetlands on their property. They boasted about all the checks they got from environmentalists who fell for their seemingly green name. I'd like to know more about any process that would make coal "clean". Cleaning up greenhouse gases alone won't make coal the preferred energy source. It still has a heavy environmental impact. I like Newt's stance on nuclear. Creating hydrogen while the grid is on minimum is a good idea. I also like his stance on urging science and technology to step up to the plate, especially now that new ideas are almost immediately cost-effective. I'd like to see patent laws change to avoid suppression. I'd really hate to hear that Newt's Texas A&M professor got stopped in his tracks because some oil company was already squatting on a patent for gasoline from garbage. I also want to see us stop the subsidies. They prevent us from truly analyzing cost-effectiveness, and enable producers to adopt lazy habits that bypass normal market pressures. I see this as the most important and the most difficult part of this process.

How, exactly? There are maths involved here that are not complicated. Can you please show, using math, why you feel this is true? Copernicus was a mathematician. He would use the language of physics to show scientists any inconsistency in a physical law.

Considering the fact that we know our government looks for multiple objectives when planning strategies ("we're going to invade, so let's see what else our efforts can do for us"), I don't think it conspiracy-minded to fear the passage of a bill that most lawmakers don't even understand, and which keeps most of its objectives secret from most of them. I could live with the flimsy promise that FISA won't encroach on my rights unless I have Al Qaeda on speed-dial, but what kind of promise is Barack Obama sending to me by voting for a bill which contains a section he strongly disagrees with? I want more accountability and less secrecy and he just voted to grant retroactive immunity to people who may have helped the government break the law. Does integrity become meaningless when you can get more votes with a billion dollars?

Totally, totally agree. Why set up a system of checks and balances and then ignore them? Cooperating with the government at any time should not break the laws made by that government. This is a true shame:

Crocodylidae racism, that's what that is.