-
Posts
23478 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
166
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Phi for All
-
Oh it is, as you can well imagine. The Autobahn is set up so they can divert traffic around virtually any spot that needs repair. But that's no different than it is here. I guess the big difference to me is whether you'd prefer to be diverted for three weeks every other year with our current system, or 3 months every ten years with the German system. It seems to me that the current system keeps you diverted more often, AND you don't get nice roads for very long. So are more shorter diversions more often better than fewer longer diversions less often? I don't think it's a humanity issue; there are plenty of places where the consumer pays exorbitant prices due to either supply / demand pressures, inflated perceived value, lack of market knowledge (as in the case of how roads are built) and the biggest culprit, convenience. We don't think about why we're paying $50 for a computer game that costs $7 to make; we think about all the hundreds of hours of enjoyment we'll get for our $50. That's an inflated perceived value; you'd never let an auto dealer get away with a 700% markup, even though you'll spend hundreds of hours driving the car (you'll experience the sharp markup when you go to buy parts, though). And when you combine lack of knowledge with the lure of convenience it's fairly easy to make the majority of people feel good about your high-priced product or service. I wouldn't blame humanity quite yet. The folks who are spinning our information before they give it to us are very good at what they do. They are protecting a very large market, even though that market is hideously wasteful and expensive. Every business will try to post the best profits they are allowed to make. It's up to the consumer to get educated, get motivated and call out for some change.
-
This is usually the reaction from lazy, poorly educated Americans (no, not specifically you, seven8s). "It can't be done!" they rail. "You'll never figure out how to solve all the problems your idea would cause, so it's better to do nothing!" *sigh* Fortunately, I don't have to figure out how to accomplish fully cured asphalt roads. A group of people called the Germans do a very good job and they proudly display their achievements in a little invention called the Autobahn. Smooth as silk and ecstasy to drive on. The Germans figured out that curing the asphalt minimizes the impact of erosion by chems and weather. It's stronger if it's allowed to set up before you start mashing it down. What's so hard to understand about that? Jobs? It's not like the work will be gone tomorrow. There would be a transitional period. And there would be all those billions of extra dollars waiting for new industries and new markets. Maybe, just maybe, some of that money could go towards school and re-training for folks who used to pour asphalt. It may still be my tax money paying for this, but people would be getting better education and we all get to ride on great roads, don't forget that. You'll probably want to pull out that tired old, "Just because it worked once doesn't mean it will work again" argument. Unfortunately, science tells us to repeat successes whenever possible. It usually leads to something wonderful. I said, "as a rock", scarecrow. Not "is a rock". Would it frighten you if the hat was German? Maybe. But the flagman wouldn't show up as much if the roads last longer. I'll trade three months of detours for each road that gets fixed and I'll happily wave to the flag man every morning if eventually I get less construction and repaving slowdowns, less fresh asphalt on my car, less road taxes, more driving enjoyment and more peace of mind that a stupid, hideously wasteful process has been cleaned up leaving us ready for progress. I'm not trying to kid you. My pet peeve is that we continue to let this problem happen out of convenience. As the OP suggests, we're afraid of upsetting the parts we like by fixing what we don't like. I think we let our fear of what might happen make us forget that progress needs momentum and usually gives us plenty of time for corrections.
-
Time to drag my favorite peeve out. Roads. The majority of the road-construction industry in the US is kept alive on planned obsolescence. Asphalt is put down and we're allowed to drive on it the same day. This insures that potholes will form, usually within the first year. When asphalt is cured for 90 days without the pounding of traffic on it, it sets up solid as a rock and probably wouldn't need repair for the next ten years. Can you imagine the money we would save by being patient and letting a little inconvenience take place? Oh, by the way, you also get to drive on glass-smooth roads all the time too, with less slow-down due to construction and repairs. We'd rather pay higher taxes to pay workers we usually see leaning on shovels than have to take a detour for three months. It does seem like that much stupidity had to have been enhanced somehow. I've often speculated that some smart people might not want to have too many other smart people around; the uneducated ones are a bit easier to hoodwink. "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool." -Wizard's First Rule
-
Exactly, and we should stop calling our voting process a "race". Americans love sports and like to back the winner. Voting should not be about choosing the winner. It should be about electing the person who will represent you best.
-
First time poster joins to remind us that we shouldn't discuss whether magnets affect our well-being, we should just accept it.
-
I heard once that chicken farmers use low levels of cyanide in their chicken feed to increase the number of white eggs as opposed to brown ones. Is this just a myth or does anyone know it to be true?
-
I met a farmer once who raised three-legged chickens. You could see them speeding around the yard like roadrunners; they were so *fast*. The farmer figured he'd get more money for them because of the extra drumstick. Unfortunately, he could never catch one to see how it tasted.
-
Why are religion topics closed in "General Topics"?
Phi for All replied to jryan's topic in The Lounge
1st Person: "Please stop yelling."2nd Person: "I'M NOT YELLING! THIS, THIS IS YELLING!!!" I say we pick 4-8 people, divide them into two teams and do a formal debate on the question, "Should SFN have a sub-forum that allows religious discussion?" If it's determined that we should, we should have another debate on the question, "How can we keep a new Religion sub-forum from being like the old ones?" It can't hurt. Unless there's going to be another Inquisition. That didn't work out too well for estrogenders. They burned too well. -
I want my present back. And do some pushups!
-
Now your changing the goalposts, widening them to include "malicious intent". You claimed there was no difference between the early Christian church "borrowing" an earlier symbol and the Darwin fish folks "borrowing" the same symbol. I pointed out that I know of no evidence that the early Christians "borrowed" the symbol in order to twit the former users. In fact, the evidence shows they were trying to establish themselves by using symbols already in use. How is your position honest and mine not? As I said, intent seems to be the key here.
-
That's not the point at all, unless you could show that the Christians who borrowed the symbol did it to play off the former users of the symbol, to set themselves up as an alternative in a semi-mocking way. Intent is the key to my objection of the Darwin fish. I think the intent of people who espouse evolutionary theory should be to enlighten others when asked and positively affect the general knowledge of evolution. They shouldn't attempt to mock religion to support evolution when history shows this to be a poor tactic. Religion can retreat behind omnipotent shields when attacked and whatever logic you might have been able to effect is lost behind ideological barriers. When I sell something, I don't do it by trashing the competition. That makes people get automatically defensive (we root for the oppressed underdog a LOT). I just point out why what I'm selling is better. Isn't there a way to praise the wonders of evolution without shoving a hand in the face of people who really haven't studied it? I swear, half the people I've met who denounce evolution are just lazy; it's easier to listen to their clergymen than to go back to school and study biology.
-
The Darwin fish requires the Christian fish to provide context. It's not original, which sort of defies the "original thinker" attitude most non-religious people prize. Regardless of intent, it seems to mock. I think another symbol needs to be found that doesn't try to imitate anything else, or at least not something religious. That just sets you up for confrontation. It would be great if the symbol could correct the misconception that we evolved from monkeys. It's unbelievable that so many people still think that. I gave this logo to a local Unitarian church after they described their needs. I never saw them use it and I always rather liked it. It was to symbolize, in modern terms, that faith is individual and that with no proof one way or the other, each belief was equal to the other. I'm not suggesting it for the Darwinians, but I always liked the simplicity of it.
-
Good post, Bignose. And jeff Mitchell, I'm sorry you read my enthusiasm as "venom". When you talk science you need to use science and a big part of the method involves tearing ideas apart to see if they have merit. When you go against accepted theories your opponents have the weight of years of observation, experimentation and evidence on their side. That's not just traditional theory, that's accepted theory. You should expect your idea to get a vigorous going-over. No venom, just speaking loudly to ensure the point is taken.
-
Another desperate sound byte! Completely inapplicable here too. You *do* need to know how textiles are made if you want to criticize how they were *first* made. And just because the answer doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to a textile maker.
-
The trouble with intuition is that people experience it with some subjects and then are disappointed when it can't be applied to all subjects. Intuition only prompts; what we derive from those prompts is not universally applicable, it's merely a natural tendency. jeff Mitchel, I think you are using portions of the theory you don't understand to suggest that the whole theory is wrong. Doesn't Occam's razor suggest that it is you who is wrong rather than all your peers who have reviewed the evidence for many decades? Rather than an obviously fallacious Appeal to Tradition, this is to imply that you listen when others suggest your knowledge base is lacking.
-
Moved to Speculations due to unproven attributes. Science often prefers a successful model over less successful models. Claiming that your detractors are blind is an ad hominem fallacy. You attempt to undermine a very logical, accepted theory, not with counter evidence, but with arguments from incredulity and slander. Misleading Vividness, and untrue as well. Remember that Occam's Razor has two edges; if you apply it you apply it to all your conclusions. So far, BB has more than enough evidence to make it a likely theory. What theory are you saying the BB is less likely than? Careful. We're very cognizant of the differences between science and religion. You have a nice little sound byte here that is false in every respect. "Unexplained" is different from "unobservable". The former is the property of science, the latter religion.
-
There needs to be a test to get a passport so we aren't sending these misrepresentatives abroad to give foreigners the wrong impression. Either that or we need to start monitoring who those clever Aussies talk to when they visit. Maybe Bush can come up with a new law that says nobody's allowed to say anything bad about us. Especially that we might be, you know, stoopid.
-
At least you're not in the Navy. I hear the new Finnish Navy has glass-bottomed boats so they can see the *old* Finnish Navy. Keep your head down, Gilded, and best of luck, you dumb bastard. Stick the bad guys with the pointy end of the sword.
-
Haiku is lowku without the swearing and the grain alcohol shots. ____________________________ January itches and I may have to make a few rash decisions. New job, new worries. Tons of opportunity, must start from scratch. Friction addiction! Starting fresh - starting happy Oh, aye, there's the rub!
-
I think most men are hard-wired to be more tactical and task-specific in their general intellectual make-up (see a fire, put it out). Women are generally more strategic and big-picture in their thinking (maybe the forest needs to burn). Men and women often misread this difference as a lack on the part of the other but it can be a huge benefit when acknowledged and exploited properly.
-
I've heard most of us only remember extremely eventful details of our lives prior to about 5-6. Traumas and delights that leave an impression are all that's usually retained, and usually not in any meaningful way. I don't think the OP's experience counts as amnesia. How aware can a 3-year-old be of suddenly not remembering the past? Toddlers are notoriously self-centered and it wouldn't surprise me a bit to hear that one couldn't remember having played with so-and-so last week. And if you don't remember it, how do you know it's a memory that's missing?
-
"He's like the borg... but different." THAT'S what I want on my tombstone!
-
Yay! Hi! Power, as in... cattle prod? No, I've just been married for 15 years. Same thing, really. Guilty here. *We have decided to be amused by this. * The royal "we".