Phi for All

I was unaware that C-4 came in bright fluorescent colors. I was unaware that C-4 dries out and starts crumbling after a day or so in the open air. I thought it was more like modeling clay and usually gray and inconspicuous. I keep seeing discrepancies about the "Play-doh". Some accounts are saying there was some "putty" on the breadboard, some are saying she had a ball of Play-doh in her hand. To me this is the critical point. Having a device on your jacket that lights up and distinguishes you from the crowd is artistic. Stick some gray modeling clay (not bright pink Play-doh) and now you obviously want it to look like a bomb. I think security reacted correctly. Take her down and sort it out away from all the people. You apologize for being so harsh if it turns out she just forgot her jacket was airport-unfriendly. You put her in jail if she was stupid enough to put some clay on it that made it look like a bomb.

It's obviously frustration, not hatred, so lets not fan the Flames. No more of that please. As yourdadonapogos said, he believes in one less god than his family does. He has come a long way in the last year or so in the way he thinks about religion. I'm willing to bet that his family hasn't done nearly as much studying about their beliefs as he has about his. That may be causing some resentment on their part too. As far as the "atheism is a religion" thang, the Christian God is unobservable at His own request. He requires faith without proof so the best science can say is, "We can't measure that, so we'll remain skeptical". While I don't think atheism is a religion, it's still a belief about something unobservable. Since you can't use science to prove or disprove it, you just have to decide which way you believe. I wish everyone could adopt the convention that *any* statement about a deity is a statement of faith since it's unprovable. It would put an end to a lot of pointless posturing.

A family that cares about your immortal soul (at least from their POV) isn't as messed up as you think. Maybe they're hiding how seriously they feel about it so they don't spook you into digging in your heels permanently. I often approach my child that way (well, without the outright laughing; laughing at her would make her *entrenched*). I'm sure they see it as something you need that you've lost but will find again. I would choose to look at it from their perspective. They love you, they want what's best for you but they are projecting what they believe is best for *them*. You may believe in one less god than they do but you still believe it to be true. If they believe their god to be true then you're all on the same page (their copy of the page just has fancier writing than yours does). If I were you the next time they bring it up I'd just tell them, "I really respect your beliefs". Don't ask them to respect yours; let them come to that conclusion themselves. Just keep repeating that you really respect their beliefs until they either drop it or concede that they will respect your beliefs as well.

Great point. I don't watch commercial TV much and I didn't realize they weren't being advertised. Is this like the electric car, did they make something they really don't want us to buy?

This sounds really familiar but I don't remember where I heard it (maybe *that's* the final piece of knowledge; if your Dad and I remember what book it's from we're ALL dead ). The way I remember it though, is that the final piece of knowledge gave this guy the ability to communicate it to all humans simultaneously, so we all went, "Oh, how simple!" and then vanished. Sounds Asimovish. I'll check around 'cause it's gonna bug me now.

Too many people these days aren't taking the future into consideration on many levels. It's tough to think ahead when you're either spending at or above your income level. People tend to look at a CFL and think, "Wow, I could go to a movie for that price!" They don't think about the fact that they'll be able to see three movies next year if they switch just one bulb over to CFL today. For too many people it's all about here and now. Convenience is horribly inefficient but no one sees it that way. Our "on demand" world caters to those who don't plan ahead, but at too steep a price, imo.

To me this is a red flag that someone is making too much money to change. I don't know how it can be more profitable to be this sloppy with our energy but somehow it must be. I remember a study done on a hydroelectric dam the US really wanted to build in a third world country. The country really needed the power but the study showed that if the US spent 1/10 of the money on buying energy efficient refrigerators for every household in the country, they wouldn't need the dam. And everyone in the country would directly benefit by having some state of the art US appliances. But since Amana didn't have as good a lobby as the hydroelectric companies, they built the dam instead. With energy you'd think efficient would equal profitable but apparently that's not the case. Is it because of deregulation and all the money private companies spent buying and marketing the old utilities? Are they trying to recoup startup costs before investing in more efficient technology?

If you cut and paste from Wikipedia *please* give them a citation, otherwise you are plagiarizing.

One of the most complete untruths I have ever seen posted here at SFN. Just because it's not intuitive to you doesn't make it wrong. And you shouldn't feel stupid because you don't understand it, you should feel stupid for not making a better attempt to understand it before condemning it. As insane_alien said, this is spamvertising. No more Googly help for *you*. Thread closed.

But I don't. I see you as someone with a great deal of potential who needs experience forming arguments and conclusions that reflect your own intellect, not merely the opinions of those you agree with. I see you as someone who is convinced you are right and you see a need to enlighten the rest of us. I see you as someone who will eventually understand that you can draw your own conclusions and be pretty interesting. But for now I see you as a young person ranting loudly with both fingers in your ears. Pull them out and you'll be able to hear everyone encouraging you to think for yourself.

Me too, temporarily. I think it causes a mini-stroke, like strobing lights can trigger epileptic seizures. Perhaps Blade is trying to kill us....

It appears then that you are superfluous. Why do we need *you*? I can see you're having a hard time with this concept. We want to hear Blade's argument, backed up by your sources. We don't need just a bunch of sources.

Oooh, short list. I'll get back to you.

Is that the box marked ACME, Mr. Coyote?

Elastic deformation doesn't work well on the human skull. I think I met your brother, albeit briefly. Nice chap, in a bit of a hurry. My wife and I were staying on the third floor. He didn't have much regard for the niceties like personal space. Rather clingy if you ask me. Tell him they charged me for the robe.

You incorrectly assume you matter.

No, they wait till *you* open the packet and take a cracker, then they take it from *you*. This answers the question, "Who?" I'd be nowhere without ma peeps.

This is going to change the few days leading up to our birthdays next year, isn't it Tom? I'm sending a link to this to my wife, gotta plan a camping trip....

Casseroles are great because you make them when you have the time and then you can eat them all week with a few variations in sides. They also use up a lot of odds and ends in the fridge that may go to waste otherwise. And a well-made lasagna is almost better the *second* time you heat it up.

Poker under a bridge?! Not according to Hoyle. Shall we all bring something? What?

Because three doesn't go into five evenly unless communists get some crackers. Castro is coming over for poker and blike scarfed all the nibblies. The "why" and the "who" seem simple enough. What I want to know is when? When?!

Proven without a doubt like religious beliefs and creation stories? Cute trick but science is not a religion. Religion requires faith in the unobservable. Science measures and attempts to understand the observable. And the theory of evolution has no "blockades" in it. Lack of complete understanding doesn't mean the theory is wrong. Evolution doesn't work on a single being, it only works if that being has offspring so it can pass along successful traits. It isn't though. Mandarin Chinese has twice as many speakers as English does. Wrong again, Spanish is fourth after Hindustani. French is ranked tenth in commonly spoken languages. I don't know which tract you picked up this info from but it's clear you need some different sources.

You guys are really off topic and I'd like to know... why?

/me hands you a Dustbuster and the phone number for the Nabisco guy. Stat!

Why? Maybe yes, maybe... why?