Phi for All

I don't think moving either the bases or the farms is viable, although the farms would be the ones to go if push came to shove. Historically, as I said before, if a base thought some of the turbines were too tall and might affect either their electronic arrays or flight patterns, they called the owners and the masts were lowered. A fifty cent call for the taxpayer (plus the inevitable cost of the paperwork). I think it's more likely that the studies will never get done. The DOD report is just a recommendation; the FAA will probably lift the ban eventually without them, just as they are considering lifting the ban on cell phones on planes. But how many years it will take is the big question. If you say so. I respect your opinion on politics, you know that. I just always thought political correctness was about going overboard trying not to offend a particular group or groups. To me this is about unfair pressure on alternative energies that need all the help they can get to avoid being squashed by competition we'd all like to rely less on.

Let me ask this first (while I still have a job): wars are usually a pretty big boost to the economy. Has Iraq just gone on too long? The stock market declined pretty rapidly in 2000 (before either invasion) and started coming back after but never back to the where it was in the 90s (admittedly a high-water mark economically). Where was the economic surge war usually brings, or is that not the way modern economics works anymore, with no-bid contracts that keep the billions from being spread around more?

My point is that the studies are so extensive and expensive that it will be easy for the FAA to claim they don't have the budget if someone with political pressure really doesn't want those wind farms for whatever reasons. That's exactly what happened with the ban on tech gadgets on airplanes. Here is the DOD report on wind farms if you'd like to see it. The testing will be very scientific (if it ever gets done), but that's not my point. The tests will be site specific so every air base (AF & Navy) will need to be tested with a slightly different set of criteria. I can't even imagine how long this will take while the wind farm industry loses ground and revenue. Really, mine's a "politically-correct opinion?!? I have a completely different definition of politically-correct. I agree that the decision should be based on the facts. I want the decision to be based on facts. I don't want the decision to be blocked because the solution is out of proportion to the problem. And I really don't want a viable energy alternative to be lobbied into extinction by the status quo. That's not progress.

An encyclopedia is a compilation of facts. How does an encyclopedia differ from science? The lament of students everywhere. Most bad assumptions started with poor basic information. Knowing how to drive doesn't mean you know how to drive a race car, and knowing how to read doesn't mean you'll grasp all of biology. Unfortunately the bs is necessary. You just won't realize it for years yet.

Learning means never having to say you're sorry. Is this for Psychology or Biology class? Outer stimuli suggests sensory input. Inner stimuli suggests a physiological reaction. Does this make sense?

The military is asking for a say in the matter due to security, but the final decision is in the hands of the FAA. As far as I know, the military bows to the FAA in all things "airy" unless it's military airspace you're talking about. Oh, stop. Why would that connect? All I'm saying is that FAA and DOD want extensive studies done before approving the same type of wind farms that haven't posed much of a problem in the past. The response seems inappropriately large to the problem and that could signal that something bigger is going on. Being in business I normally gravitate to money as the motivator in such cases. I suppose Argument from Incredulity is an even worse fallacy when government agencies are involved. Remember, like many government agencies, the FAA doesn't initiate investigations on their own. There must be enough complaints (or a few powerful complaints) before they'll take any action. Well, I'm not going to let the comparisons to other sub-fora distract me here. I will ask what you think would constitute evidence for my suspicions. I stated pretty clearly that my comments were just that and anything I could find to back me up was still conjecture, barring testimony under oath from the politicians involved. Can you say honestly that money is *not* involved here? Part of your problem with my comments could be that the OP is from a British member talking about a British story and I'm only relating the US side of the matter. The US military is touting security measures in the UK and certainly the FAA has no clout there, but the precedence for this was set two years ago here in the US.

Evidence of a suspicion? OK, as long as you'll allow some further conjecture. Hard evidence would be difficult to obtain unless you can get a politician to tell the whole truth behind his motivations. Like the cell phone / airline dilemma, the study of the effects of wind turbines on military aircraft radar will most likely never be done. The Defense Dept report calls for testing each base with unique criterion because of differences in everything from altitude to seismic variance. Studies must first be done to determine how the tests will be conducted. Further tests will determine how each base differs from the norm so the tests can be individualized. If the turbines themselves have differences I'm sure that will require further unique tests. I have only found one instance where a military radar missed seeing a plane but this is being implemented *everywhere* wind turbines are proposed. Many bases already sit next to wind farms and have never reported any trouble that couldn't be immediately rectified with a phone call. This *could* be a case of some influential NIMBYs who didn't realize the ripple effect their protests would cause. Perhaps it's just Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Warner who pulled strings so their backyard view remains unspoiled. But this threatens a booming industry, one that the President claims to support. If no new wind farms can be built until this outrageous study is done it could be the death of wind power (or at least slow explosive growth to give established energy providers time to to get their own plans together). In the past, if there was a problem with a turbine being too tall the military told the company to shorten it. They did. End of story. Why is such a huge deal being made out of such a small problem? The FAA refuses to fund studies to see if cell phones and laptops really do affect aircraft electronics because there are so many components in the cockpit they would have to test for, and the tests would have to be done with all commercially available electronics. So they don't bother with it. The FAA will be the final arbiter in this dispute as well. They have demonstrated that a simple ban is more cost-effective for them than extensive studies aimed at getting to the truth. Evidence that money is at the heart of this legislation? Certainly not in the scientific sense, but there is a whole bunch of money at stake here. Blocking wind farms or funding enormous government testing is generating money for someone big time.

It seems strange, if this really were a problem, that it wouldn't have been jumped on with steel-toed combat boots some time ago. Wind turbines have been around for a while now. There have been suspicions of energy companies using politicians to help them stop wind farm usage. Is this like the airlines telling you that your cell phones and electronic gadgets must be turned off or it will interfere with the plane's electronics? The airlines claim our devices can cause autopilot disconnects, erratic flight deck indications, airplanes turning off course, and uncommanded turns. Yet they only ask us to turn them off during take-off and landing and the FAA's proposed testing has been idle promises for years. Would they really allow us to have devices that could take a plane off course? Or do they see this as a way to make $ on airphones and in-flight movies? I suspect money is at the heart of the military / wind turbine issue.

... but I can't resist. A friend of a friend has an autistic son (20 something) who, while he can't hold down a job due to his autism, is socially and mentally functional enough to do many things, including using public transportation. My friend met this guy and says he has a very interesting point of view on most mundane subjects. Time in particular is something he doesn't see the way we do and he's often perplexed with how others view time. He can read a clock but almost never relates things in terms of time. The anecdote involves this guy meeting his mother downtown for lunch. They were to meet at noon at a certain place. The mother arrived early and got a call shortly after from her son at their home number (caller ID verified). He had forgotten which restaurant they were going to meet at. She reminded him, and also chided him that he would be late. He assured her he would be there at noon. She told him that the bus would take half an hour and it was already 11:50am. He told her he would get there at noon as promised. She got creepy chills when he showed up 10 minutes later at noon. When she asked if he took the bus he said no. He also denied riding with anyone. When she asked him how he got there he couldn't explain it. He says he didn't walk but it was "like that". His mother claims he is a poor liar and anyone can tell when he's making something up. To this day they haven't figured out how he could have done this. She herself takes 20 minutes by car in traffic. Even on a Sunday with little traffic you can't get there in 10 minutes. So if time is subjective and situational perception can be vary among individuals, does someone who has a non-standard view of time affect time differently or just perceive that they affect it differently? Does your head hurt as much as mine right now?

That's why John Titor was unsuccessful. He forgot/forgets/had forgotten that Wonder bread isn't/wasn't/hadn't been used as currency in the 21st century.

The Chinese legally banned reincarnation without permission. Maybe we can do the same with time travel. And when people ask for permission, we tell them that if we had granted permission they wouldn't be here now to ask for permission. Permission DENIED.

I'm not sure about what you're asking my opinion on. My opinion on your circumstances would be meaningless. Are you asking if your reasoning regarding why you stopped wetting and soiling the bed are psychologically sound? Or are you asking if nature predisposed you to feel different from the family that nurtured you because of the genetic separation of being adopted?

For #3 I think we need more information. Since a car was specified, is it right to assume it can't travel over water? Is there anywhere on earth a car could circumnavigate without leaving land? So would you say the earth's rotation has no effect on walking in circles?

If this thread disappears and we no longer remember it, did it exist in the first place?

Vic, a new member, sent me a PM asking these questions so I've started this thread in Homework Help for him. Vic asks: 1. Does the movement of earth around it's own axis, and around the sun, and gravity on earth, has an effect on, and explain why people walk in circles when totally lost in the wilderness ? 2. Will this always be true, and what do these circle patterns look like ? 3. If one locks a car's steering wheel in a straight position and keep driving, will you end up in or near the place you started from ?

Oh, sorry. I thought they sent the note to everyone. My bad. Um, don't time travel, people. It would be/has been/is dangerous, according to the future.

whizmd, I've disabled you link. If you'd like to discuss your hypothesis please post it here. Many people join to try and lead the membership elsewhere. Complaints have forced us to confine discussion to our own site. Thanks for understanding.

My comment on your objectivity *in this instance* stands. You criticize without participating. This is not an experiment, it's social discourse and rational discussion of political topics. It's really easy to look down your nose at our Politics section when your insights aren't present. It's also kind of funny that you're telling us we're doing it all wrong when virtually every decent science forum on the web has a Politics section as well. Have you told PhysicsForums their Politics & World Affairs section is meaningless? And btw, trying to argue that my comments *in this instance* apply to all objective observation is a strawman argument. Bad logic. Bad. Unfortunately, people who tend to let their stupid show a lot would still be angry at the ban in just 24 hours. Most would need at least 3 days to calm down and try to recapture some level of lucidity.

Ahhh. Observers who don't participate are almost always scathing in their critiques. Those sound like some excellent thread ideas. Since you don't post there, no one knows what jeremyhfht would find useful. How is that our fault? Good idea. But since you don't post there, no one knows what jeremyhfht would find meaningful. Again, how is that our fault? Without your input *in Politics* there is no one to lead by an example that would satisfy jeremyhfht. And a university's most frequented building is usually the student union or the campus pub. So what? People who spend a lot of time learning like to share that knowledge. They also like to apply what they learn to situations other than the classroom or laboratory. Discussing Politics is a way of using what you know to influence your opinions on things that are happening in the world around you. Go check out some other Politics forums online. I can't stand them. I like reading about current events as discussed by people who's opinions I've learned to respect. Good. Please feel free to start some threads. Remember, the OP sets the tone and you can request serious adherence to your topics. The Mods will help too. Or, you can go on criticizing without participating. Which kind of makes you like those folks who gripe about the government but don't bother to vote.

You've only been eligible for posting in Politics for the last 17 posts (takes a minimum of 30 posts to be eligible). If you'll give it a chance you'll see that it's well moderated and, while more opinion-prone than the science sub-fora, Politics at SFN is discussed rationally and logically. Fallacious logic is frowned on as elsewhere and lunatics are dealt with pretty harshly. And the focus is often how politics will affect scientific inquiry. I think you are premature in your judgment. So were supposed to ignore current events and just discuss *types* of governments and economies? Pass. I think we'd spend more time telling people they have to stop talking about current events than it would be worth. Politics is one of our most-viewed sections. And we try to encourage members to post in all the sub-fora; you'll get a verbal warning if you spend *all* your time in Politics. But I'd like to hear from anyone else on the subject. Anyone else feel the same way jeremyhfht does about our Politics section? The same guy who will probably turn it on again.

We used to have that under What's Going On? at the bottom of the main Forum page. I'm sure it's something that can easily be switched back on. Just not by me... Cap'n or dave will swoop in soon and fix you right up, mad one.

I saw a farmer in Slovakia blow his nose into his hand, then wipe his hand on the grass at his feet. *Then* he pulled a handkerchief from his pocket and finished cleaning his hand and dabbing at his nose. At first I thought it was pretty disgusting but isn't it even more disgusting to blow the mucus into the handkerchief and then keep it in your pocket the rest of the day? I'm sure it varies from culture to culture. I've seen men who clear their nostrils outdoors by closing one and exhaling sharply out of the other onto the grass. Done correctly, there isn't anything left to clean up and it takes a few seconds. Done incorrectly, you just look like a dribbling idiot. I think I remember reading somewhere that the modern handkerchief evolved from a popular head covering when snuff became fashionable. They were usually brown to hide the tobacco stains.

Moved to Homework Help. I think you'll get more responses here from members who like to help.

You typed ": D" (without the space between or the quotes) and that invoked the code for that big green smiley. To google the virus just add colonD in place of the smiley. This must be a fairly new virus because there's not much out there about it.

Agreed. Done.