Phi for All

Many people study certain fields in science only partially and then, due to some misunderstanding or lack of comprehension, they decide that it must be wrong and they devise an alternate "theory" that makes more sense to them. You are telling us that you've never studied at all what thousands of people have devoted their lives to studying, never even opened a book on the subject, but you have a better answer than all those other people who have put in literally millions of hours of study and experimentation. Your idea fits a pattern that pleases you but it is hardly science and doesn't answer ANYTHING better than theories that have been thoroughly observed, researched and argued between scientists the world over for a long time.

It's amazing to me that ultraviolet light from the sun so far away is breaking up methane to make a huge lake of ethane. I wonder if there really were oceans of it and this is what's left after 4.5 billion years. And no more unemployment, what with the need to build a 1.2 billion kilometer pipeline....

My first post was just a bunch of crazy ramblings, too. Oh, wait, no it wasn't. Good spelling and sentence structure though, not like most of the first-timers who post threads on putting Darwin in a 90s DOS game. Many people are already too threatened by Darwin, unfortunately.

The two of them melded together are my ideal candidate, but individually they scared me. And I have to admit that, while it was their core commitments that attracted me, I let things like Paul's stance on evolution and Kucinich's Department of Peace scare me off. I'm actually pretty ashamed about that. Both of these men tell it like it is. They are straight shooters who care more about doing the right thing than doing the political thing. But we treat them like fools who tell the king how bad things really are while the court looks on and laughs. When did we stop identifying with the fool and become part of those fops at court? Is Obama or McCain going to decrease corporate welfare? Are they going to offer a viable federal option for universal healthcare? Are they going to work on breaking the hold big business has on our politics? Are they going to work hardest on restoring the trust of the American people and the rest of the world? These are the things that really matter to me right now and I don't think any of this is going to play a factor in either Obama or McCain's administrations. I think this is why we're picking on things like gaffes on history and geography. Substance is lacking at a time when we seem to be driving too close to the edge of the cliff and while both candidates want to grab the wheel, I'm not sure I trust either to get us back on the road.

They both goofed twice. Both McCain and Obama got history wrong, first strikes. McCain gets a second strike because he cited bad history as "just a matter of history", a typical politician's ploy to keep people from checking facts. Obama made his second error trying to plug his party after citing bad history. I guess it all comes down to politics as usual, which is so what we don't need.

Ohhhh, I thought "He" referred to God, but helium makes more sense. And now this Bible passage makes sense: He will definitely give you the most high voice.

I'm reminded of when the Chinese government wanted to remove the McDonald's from Tienanmen Square, despite the fact that they themselves had negotiated a 20-year lease. It seems that promises from the Chinese government are not the same thing as promises elsewhere. I'm betting the Chinese government was counting on just this reaction. Using the leverage we have seems to be the only thing that will motivate them to adhere to agreements, such as when we threatened to block Guangdong's textile exports to the US unless they put a stop to the province's pirate factories.

I remember thinking a while back that credit debt, education and employment are a powerful combination that someone is likely to exploit. The scenario goes like this: Your public education won't get you very far in the job market (for some reason, public schools don't get the funding and attention in the US they do elsewhere), and you've been encouraged even as a teen to use credit cards. Suddenly an offer comes in to pay for your college tuition, as long as you study certain courses and allow a company to be named later to pick up your debt. When you graduate, various companies who need what you've been schooled for now offer to pick up your debt in exchange for a work contract. The company may even help you get a loan for a house (but then you'd have to work longer to pay it off). I think those in debt will have a pretty rude awakening in the near future.

Consider also that patents are being extended, in a time when technology is improving at such a rapid pace that some patents could conceivably be suppressed long enough to make the new technology obsolete as the market moves past it. How much technology that could spark even greater technology will we miss out on because it could hurt a current market? If a technological singularity is on the horizon, how will current patent law keep pace (or fail to)?

I wonder if a great deal of these types of bills isn't about exploitation approval. The public cries out for something to be done, the pols come up with a fix and it just happens to involve a lot of really great business opportunities (earmarks) for those who are in a good position to exploit them. The public says, "Do it!" and the exploitation is approved. And now there's probably a guy who is a heavy contributor to someone's campaign who just happens to offer a fingerprinting service that is pre-approved by the FBI. Notice that the bill calls for the mortgage lenders to send in their fingerprints to the FBI, not have their fingerprints done by the FBI.... 600 pages can hide a lot of exploitation.

If his fears are justified, do you see cell phones being eliminated, or would they just put a warning label on them like cigarette packs? Or possibly a new anti-brain cancer accessory could be sold, or better yet, a monthly subscription service.... For an extra $6.95 a month, you can upgrade to our BrainStain service! A special dye is injected from the phone through your ear so your doctor can map changes in your CAT scans!

No need to be sorry. I'm giddy with glee, myself. Thread closed.

This part sounds more like the Fundamental Attribution Error. We label because we love to categorize, but we attribute behavior to the label because we don't tend to look at others in context. It's much easier to ascribe the term "liberal" to someone who doesn't like corporate conglomerates, rather than to dig deeper to find out that their concerns are actually for business and fair markets in general and are actually quite conservative. Much easier, but completely wrong.

Most crackpots, in my experience, fall prey to the idea that education is a flawed and stifling process that inhibits creative thinking, and that thinking creatively is the only thing that will help us out of the rut we've dug ourselves into, because science is full of old men who were educated the same old way. And that's bad because after all, education is a flawed and stifling process that inhibits creative thinking.... Crackpot science is lazy and lacks rigor. It's arguments are flawed and it's logic is circular. It's a "get-smart-quick" scheme.

You have to expand on this, otherwise I'm left with too much conjecture, such as:1) Kicking is the standard field treatment for lightning victims 2) Your mate wasn't trying to put you down, he was trying to put you out 3) He was angry because you took his turn at being struck 4) Your mate didn't want to get char on his hands

I find it interesting that the map was obviously started on a non-square piece of paper. You can see how the bottom left corner is missing but the writing follows the missing part, so it follows that the cartographer may have fudged the relationship between South America and Antartica for mundane reasons.

You should "see yourself as not a scientist or physicist, but a philosopher", swansont. This is a diatribe from the heart of misunderstanding. Surely some "fun and carefree time" will ensue. Or not.

Since the dialogue we would normally have has been completed in the OP, we're left with nothing to discuss. Thread closed.

There's not enough competition to spark the debate needed to correct the corruption. With most media in the hands of a few conglomerates we don't have nearly enough dissenters to point fingers at unworthy practices. This is a market that has gone far beyond being able to correct itself. This is what we get from mega-corp mentality, a total lack of concern for good policy governance and a disconnection from the human factor.

I would agree in general except this time McCain had to add the last sentence, which makes it noteworthy. A mis-statement about history, followed by, "I mean, that’s just a matter of history” is a cut above a minor misstep. Not much, but definitely edging into irony.

This is an optimum moment to change a great deal that needs changing: We have a nationwide shortage of asphalt due to asphalt oil price increases. If we stopped letting people drive on asphalt the day it's put down, we could save billions every year by letting it cure longer and suffering a little inconvenience. We subsidize established markets like oil, milk, sugar and corn for no good reason and many bad ones. We wouldn't need tax increases if we didn't spend taxes on these subsidies. Patented technology that could help is being suppressed so it doesn't harm the profits of a current market. We need to change patent law so that mega-corps who can afford to extend patents can't do so to keep us from progressing. I agree with Gore that we need to start now to protect ourselves and our environment and I can't find any fault with the idea of moving in a direction that empowers us without polluting us. If we're not seriously committed to moving off-planet in the very near future, we need to become more sustainable in our world view.

Most technology that starts out with military applications ends up sparking a few dozen non-military applications as well, once it can be made safe for those uses. The scenario you paint where technology continues to progress faster and faster has its limits, but it may actually be the factor that helps us progress to a Star Trek-type level, where money is done away with and a sort of meritocracy is established. Capitalistic markets need technology to slow down long enough to be controlled and exploited. Maybe if progress becomes too rapid to allow profitable manufacturing, we might just give up our markets and shoot for the stars.

This is the key, imo. Bullies target the kids that give them the best response. Smart kids usually have more verbal acuity and bullies look bad when the tables are turned. It's the kids who get defensive, who are visually uncomfortable, and who respond nervously that get repeatedly bullied. Most bullies are too lazy to be challenged by a moving target; they tend to aim at the ones that are easiest to hit.

I agree.

I tried to make the distinction between shampoo and soap. Soap is a better overall cleaning agent for hair because it has it's own oils or fats, but doesn't work as well with hard water. Detergents like shampoo lather well even in hard water, but tend to strip out more of the natural oil (sebum) from your hair, and that needs to be replaced or the hair isn't as well protected. I agree with this and I shouldn't have made it a generality. I was trying to point out that most shampoos are harsher on hair than soap, usually requiring a conditioner be used after shampooing (the fancy salons never skip the conditioner). Soap doesn't work as well when your water is highly alkaline but is less harsh on your hair (if you use a water softener, it will keep soap from leaving the scummy residue that happens with hard water).