Phi for All

Cost you $20.

You physicists! It's like you've got a "rule" for everything! When are you going to get over yourself? Wait, would angular momentum be conserved if you tried to get over yourself?

I 'm glad to hear I was wrong about their resources. The human spirit is an indomitable thing indeed. I still worry about whether or not the services they provide are invaluable; urban development doesn't always look beyond the value of the real estate.

After three pages of refutation of his claim that Relativity is wrong. Priceless.

Classic. I mean a completely priceless classic.

First thing would do is abolish money and set up a meritocracy. Privileges to those who merit such. Next I would establish a Planetary Healthcare system. If you're sick, you get treated. Period. Then I would set up a Minimum Subsistence (MinSub) program designed to feed, clothe and house every person on the planet. No frills whatsoever but no homelessness or starvation either. Education would be the next hurdle. Everyone would get taught to the extent of their abilities and those who show a propensity for certain subjects or work would be encouraged along those lines. Next I would have a World Citizenship program. This would require that you perform some sort of task for your fellow earthlings. If you don't work, you don't get the privileges of a Citizen (which would be many). If you feel like taking a break or a leave of absence longer than normal, you can always fall back on MinSub. Workgroups would take the place of corporations and I'd like to limit communities to no more than about a hundred people to instill a more personal feel. Several of the workgroups would be working to establish our presence off-planet, and science education would be mandatory to a certain level . After 20 years or so, once the next generation had begun with this system in place, I would probably allow this meritocracy to elevate someone else to my position, and I would retire to write my memoirs.

Imagine the entire population of Detroit (just under a million). They all live in about 130 square miles. Now imagine that they're all at the poverty level (not the US poverty level; Asia's poverty level), no education, not much hope, very little resources. Now scrunch them all down into one square mile. One. Square. Mile. That square mile of property is worth billions to developers in Mumbai, if they could just get a million people to move to... wherever, someplace else I guess.

I'm moving this from Book Talk (which is mainly for discussion of a single book) into General Physics for a more comprehensive set of replies.

BUMP! the Haiku Thread! I'm a fan of my fan now as the great globe warms.

Well, it was the first thing that came to mind when I read your opening post. India and Pakistan have a great disparity in education and population. Those who have been to school get jobs that help them gain more status and knowledge, better living conditions and access to consumer goods. Those who have not been to school have very little chance for advancement. It's the same in most countries, but you have a larger population than most and a greater disparity between those who get an education and those who don't. Slums like Dharavi happen when those who can't get jobs in a big city like Mumbai can't afford to live there but can't pass up the opportunities in a big city like Mumbai. Unfortunately, the people who inhabit Dharavi will probably be pushed out as Mumbai grows. They also will not have the power to profit from the prime real estate they'll be vacating.

Perhaps we can start here with a sub-forum of Ecology and the Environment called Global Warming. Dak can put together a sticky similar to the one he did for Philosophy & Religion.

I don't see this as self-flagellation; the whip is being handed to us in the form of clever campaigns by those who stand to lose money and power if our current systems change too drastically. We're guilty of wielding that whip robustly once it's been given to us though, I'll admit that. The "unwashed masses" are the most affected by these campaigns, just as they're the ones that are most affected by commercials telling them how bad they stink or how much their future depends on the lustrousness of their hair. Educating Average Joe is what's needed but AJ will always savor the sound byte over the tutorial he really needs. Which presidential candidate is going to try to tackle the job of teaching AJ to think a little more critically about his future?

If there was a sawgrass or algae market to subsidize, they probably would be.

I removed your son's email address. We get little crawly spiderbots that prowl the internet for email addresses to spam. While the OP might be welcome by your son, the rest might not. Perhaps you can copy the OP, mail it to your son and then report his findings. I'm going to move this thread to Homework Help but I'll leave a redirect that will last 1 month. You should get your "smart guy" to join up here at SFN. We welcome smart guys and gals.

If Chevron used the NiMH technology they've been sitting on and announced an x-year strategy to team up with GM and produce the EV-2, EV-3 and finally the EV-4 (the evolution you mentioned), I'd take back every bad thing I ever said about them. The US could lead by example for a change, too.

I sincerely hope we can capitalize on the very recent trend that the high price of gas has engendered (I've seen six different Smart Cars in my suburb in the last month!). Americans don't rock the boat when things are convenient or don't cost much. We don't generally speak up at the workplace as long as our jobs are relatively safe. We'll let the bullies kick sand in our face as long as they don't block our time in the sun. But the energy isn't cheap anymore. It's $20 to fill the barbecue propane tank, $50 to fill the truck, the Hummer 1 & 2 have been discontinued and the Hummer 3 is a 5-cylinder (for green folks who secretly wanted an H1, and don't mind explaining themselves endlessly, I guess). With more smaller cars on the road, the old "they're not safe" argument is giving ground to smugness at the pump. We're starting to realize it's the big ol' gas-guzzlers that made small cars unsafe in the first place. I can appreciate holding on to your market to squeeze the last good drops of profit, but I think the oil market has long been free of the pressures a normal market feels, due to subsidization, lack of alternatives, suppression of patent technology and state-of-the-art spin marketing. The next president has a chance to start with a more level playing field and I hope he takes advantage of this new trend instead of our aversion to change. Especially now that the US corn crops are being flooded by heavy rains.

I thought Orangi in Pakistan was bigger.

It was a nice try, but the statistics quibble was hardly rationalizing away the responsibility of black fathers to their families. I'm not even sure the stats are relevant to that, since divorce doesn't mean "dead beat" or that a divorced father never visits his children. I'm pretty liberal socially but you'd never get me to rationalize why a black father, or any father, would stop seeing and supporting his family whether he married the mother of his children or not.

The OP is having trouble accessing this thread to reply. Is anyone else having problems?

No conspiracy necessary. Just a group who wants the statistics to shore up their argument, namely that atheists are less likely to divorce than religious people. Black women are either better wives or more intimidating than their husbands? Did you see that blacks are more likely to remarry after divorce than whites are? Most marriage studies show that second marriages are more likely to last than first marriages. This could account for much of your discrepancy.

Surely an atheist site has an agenda, no? I was using mostly The US Census Bureau spreadsheets from 2004, LegalZoom and DivorceForm.org but I now realize I was using the wrong numbers. There is a great difference between respondents who had "ever" divorced, and those who were "currently" divorced. And as Sisyphus mentions, it seems many black couples that produce children never marry so they aren't part of the rate.

I looked at multiple sources which varied and the best averaging I could come up with was 9.8 percent of whites divorced, 11.3 percent of African-Americans, and 7.6 percent of Hispanics.

How much of the problem is abandonment, and how much is because Mom left Dad because he's in prison on drug charges? That may be what offends liberals. I know blacks have a higher percentage of mothers who never married in the first place, but their divorce rate is disproportionately higher too and I've always thought much of that was due to the War on Drugs disproportionately targeting blacks.

Play both sides?! I think you should stop in to Denver on your way back and meet my wife an I.... :cool: Seriously, I love that we'll be well represented at TAM6. Great shirt, great idea, great teaser (AND I like the bit about your smarterthanthat.com project). Have a great time, take pictures and see if you can arrange for us to interview some of the guest speakers!

Impeccable logic. No sir, can't pec a thing there, not even the smallest bit. You definitely have the tiniest peccer at SFN, YDOAPS. That said, this must be a brand new social group, and the only one I'm eligible for. Thanks for the... tip (eww).