Phi for All

New Science has been permanently banned, after repeated failed attempts to get him to answer questions regarding his Speculations. Attempts to explain where his information was in error were ignored. He proved to be inconsistent with our purposes and unwilling to adopt even the basic rigor science requires.

I read your excellent posts about TAM6 over at Skeptic Friends. It sounds like a fantastic venue for great minds. Welcome to this SFN, to Kil and the others who are joining. I plan on starting an account at Skeptic Friends in the very near future (but I'm a little skeptical....)

I think missile defense systems are the Holy Grail of the defense contractors. The basic theory is so overwhelmingly attractive that we'll ignore the lack of accountability, decades of failure and the cost overruns that get hidden due to contractors using planning methodology that doesn't match time and dollars spent to actual work done.

I was willing, at first, to think that Obama wanted to have the bigger war chest just to lock his party's election chances. I will be saddened indeed if he is going to simply run the most ludicrously expensive "race" in US history to get my vote. I'm certainly not well represented by a man that would be that haphazard with marionette money. Why does it seem like, when we could most use a viable third alternative, the reasons for voting for one man so another doesn't win become even more apparent and unfortunately necessary? I want Bob Barr to protect my civil liberties, Dennis Kucinich to stand up to the lobbyists and Ron Paul to stop unnecessary government spending, but if I vote for any of them, I might get McCain and four more years of "How much is that weapon in the window?"

We should just use a much cheaper and readily available technology, the good old American universal remote control. Give every US citizen the abort codes fand we'll be destroying nukes while we surf.

Thread closed.

It has been determined that our doubts about New Science's ability to remain consistent with our purpose have cast shadows beyond which we have been mercilessly driven. He will now have more than the usual amount of time to ignore us. Thread closed. Account closed.

The loss of such fluffy fodder for the average Enquiring mind would create a vacuum filled nicely by my new black-gold magnetic pyramid bracelets, which are perpetually powered by HHO gas and magic.

Can you define this a bit further? Are you talking about different techniques to more easily (less recovery time) or less expensively do what modern day cosmetic surgery can do, or are you talking about something more drastic, like being able to look any way you want to? If the latter, there would be some legal issues, like mandatory implants that would quickly identify us. Also, given the current penchant for altering the body with piercings and tattoos, I could easily see fads developing that would make an individual stand out from the crowd... more.

It would be so cool to have the ability to mark a member as "Moderation Only", meaning that their posts would have to be approved by a Mod before it shows up in any thread. That way if they weren't answering questions, committed repeated fallacies, made the same refuted argument ad infinauseum or otherwise were being a waste, we could delete the response and ask them to try again until they have something worthwhile and regular members wouldn't have to deal with responding to crap. Oh, Cap'n, my Cap'n? Oh, Caaaaaaaaaaaap'n?

Please clarify:1. What questions are you talking about? 2. What is it you wish to discuss? 3. Are you promoting the "Everything List" group? 4. What does your title mean? Do we need to inform physics about something? Does it refer to a new type of physics (much as inline skates are a newer type of skates)? Please be as clear as possible when posting in a discussion forum.

And I'm not sure a queue like that could be set up on a general forum. We'd have to have a Threads in Mediation sub-forum so every thread in it would go through moderation. That might work, if you could get rid of the Star Chamber stigma this usually engenders.

We probably would, but I think it's preferable to have the people who buy sugar pay for it. Subsidies ensure that I'm paying my part of the industry's profits even if I don't buy any of their product. I don't think it's necessary, desirable or even probable that the sugar industry would go out of business without subsidies. They would be forced, like any other business, to find other ways of being profitable, hopefully without affecting taxpayers (as opposed to consumers).

If the Bush administration acted unconstitutionally, and the telcoms violated the (then current) law by cooperating with them, isn't Title II just an attempt to keep the telcoms from throwing Bush et al under the bus (if I may continue to use that particular phrase)? Would the telcoms' panoply of lawyers have allowed them to risk so much without a guarantee of consideration or immunity? How did the House defend protecting the telcoms by allowing Title II to remain in the resolution? I think Obama is risking quite a bit on being able to "work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate." If he gains other concessions but Title II stays in for the Senate vote, I will have lost a great deal of confidence in Obama's credibility. I'm frankly sick of the secrecy. The thread I was following about wiretapping got closed, so I'm sorry if this ground has been gone over already.

There may be no correlation between spelling and intelligence, but there is one between spelling and understanding. We have a harder job on an internet forum making ourselves understood and I feel that it's only proper rigor and respect for your audience that you do everything possible to increase comprehension. Text speak in a science forum is lazy, inappropriate and disrespectful. <<<(please note the period) All that said, I've noticed that people who learned the phonics approach to reading are worse spellers than those who rely on visual input alone. Phonics pholks are more fluent and faster readers, while we non-pholks have to memorize every word to get it right.

These two sentences from mooeypoo's post highlight my stance on the matter. The reason why we started Speculations is because we wanted a place for those who are speculating on an idea they had (and hopefully did some work on before they posted a thread). If they present their idea well and use good scientific method and logic in their arguments, their idea will either get refuted or pass a somewhat rigorous though informal review. Either way, we will have approached the idea honestly and with integrity. It would be the best thing EVER if someone could pose a speculation, have it reviewed until no one could spot any flaws, and then have the thread moved into an appropriate science category, possibly gaining some notice from the rest of the scientific community. THE. BEST. THING. EVER. The reason why we also put Pseudoscience in the same sub-forum is because too often the ideas resort to lazy or fallacious methods, lacking the necessary rigor to meet the informal review we give it. No math, misunderstanding of established scientific principles or hurdles spanning too many logical fallacies are the norm for most of these. The burden is on the thread starter to take criticism on board instead of just leaping to the conclusion that his detractors are too hidebound or unimaginative to grasp the concept. It's understandable that someone with a great idea would want to defend it in almost any way possible. It's illogical when that defense continues after several knowledgeable members point out flaws that are ignored. It's absurd when the defense calls into question the whole community of scientists who ascribe to an established theory because it's the best explanation available. Trolls are absurd.

I think they're mis-using it in some of those instances. Trying things and finding out they don't work and subsequently getting rid of them is not "throwing them under the bus". To me, being thrown under the bus is the equivalent of George Carlin's "Do what you want to the girl, but leave me alone!" bit (from Words You Never Hear). It's a totally unexpected betrayal rather than a discarded attempt.

This is an explosive topic and the urge to bring out all your ammo is a high-powered one. You don't need to snipe at me, I just want folks to avoid blasting away with both barrels on all their gun stances without regard to the OP.

Don't do that anymore. It's rude to the people who take time out of their day to respond, it's bad logic and it's a very poor tactic that could come back to haunt you later.

The Tesla vehicles are fully electric, and neither use nor store hydrogen. As for your belief that hydrogen cars will dominate the market, is this because of current internal combustion technology? Where are the cars getting the hydrogen from? I sure didn't like the early cells that used petroleum.

Please note the limited area of discussion in the OP, people. This is NOT a thread about general gun control. Please keep your responses regarding hunting, protection, assault rifles, automatic weapons and such out of here unless you are able to make a point about handguns and suicide. We had this thread called "Guns" that went on for 31 pages. It's easy to do if you aren't specific in limiting the topic.

Is there such a thing as "annoyony"? I used to manage a property with a sushi restaurant in it, and one of the chefs always used "-sama" when he spoke to me. I was younger and easily flattered and only after that chef had moved on did I find out from some of the other chefs that he hated my guts and was just patronizing me with mock respect. Way too subtle for a rubber chicken guy like me. Interesting, so a sort of disclaimer phrase to set the tone, then you let 'em have it. Very civilized and honorable, you Finns. When you're speaking to each other at all, that is (you owe me a sip of coffee for that one, Gildy). I'm actually very curious if there is a culture (terrestrial) that doesn't use sarcasm. For a while I wondered about the Chinese. A few experiences where sarcasm seemed to fly right over Chinese heads made me think it just wasn't part of their culture, but I think their response was, in itself, somewhat sarcastic, now that I think about it.

Welcome to all the new folks. It is extremely logical that you chose to become members and reflects very well on your intellects. Bienvenue! Please help me out with this thread in General Discussion about sarcasm in many languages. *You* can give us the Russian perspective.

I'm not trying to talk for Tom, but advocating a comprehensive sex education program is NOT an "anti-abstinence" stance. I'm not sure about the "mere couple of studies" part, but again, it's logical to fund the best program available when it comes to spending tax money, even if it's only a couple of studies that show that. The "left" again! Left socially, or left fiscally? I'd need to know if Obama was also considering funding an abstinence-only group that has absolutely no church affiliation, because, as a fiscal conservative, I want to know if he's throwing my money at social programs that have low success as opposed to those that have a higher rate. I couldn't find any groups like that (after a relatively short google) and it seems we would need to trust church groups, in this instance, to stick to social assistance and leave their ideologies out of it if they want some of *my* taxes. I'd like to see some strict watchdog measures on any program involving a faith-based group. I keep picturing teens waiting for their condoms in a long line which just happens to stretch through a room where the preacher is practicing for Sunday's sermon....

OK, over-emphasis in tone, mocking cadence and denial of the obvious, cool. Erm, I mean, what-a-yoo-neek per-speck-tive, Dak! So, either emphasizing or de-emphasizing facial expression and tone. But the words stay relatively the same, right? I guess this is "remark" sarcasm, coming up with something completely at odds with what's really happening (both rednecks are already holding a beer and there's several "dead soldiers" lying on the porch, right?). Oooh, that is subtle. Not sure if that even *is* sarcasm, or just a veiled southern threat. Any languages other than English? While I think some of the other European languages may share similar traits with English, I'm also really interested in how the Asian, Middle Eastern and Slavic languages express sarcasm. And if anyone speaks one of those lilting Scandinavian tongues, how do you do it?