Phi for All

I was just thinking about this the other day, but in my daydream I had won a lottery and had to figure out how to live the rest of my life on one lump sum. I think this scenario would be pretty much the same for me. I make a distinction between a "vacation" and a "trip". Vacations are for parking your butt somewhere beautiful and catching up on your reading without the stress of having to be somewhere doing something. Trips are for exploring, learning, sightseeing and education. I would immediately go on a three week vacation to St. Croix, followed by a trip to Europe (or possibly Turkey or Costa Rica). As for what I'd do instead of work a job, I would like to work with builders around the world to promote sustainable architecture and design. I would like to put together a team of engineers and architects to travel around the world implementing LEED certification (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) in countries that desperately need it. Alternative energy strategies are being funded massively in the Pacific Rim and right now they have more money than ideas so research and planning won't have to come out of my salary. I don't have to have a lot of material possessions. I think traveling more would actually force me to cut back on buying more stuff (best to travel light). If I'm spending less time at home then I don't need as much anyway. I would probably hire an au pair to school my daughter as we travel. I could probably find someone good who would be willing to take a minimal salary in exchange for room, board and travel expenses. Going back to school myself would have to wait since I need to save what I can for my daughter's college. I like that my retirement is taken care of but there are many expenses I'm sure I am forgetting.

Science and experimentation are the *only* reasons for doing something like this. We could learn tons of valuable information in many areas. And now we come to why this experiment would be wrong. Just because we *can* do something doesn't mean we *should*. One likely scenario would be the creation of a species that was halfway between humans and chimps in intelligence. How long would it take people to exploit that? Legally they wouldn't have human rights so they would make clever, strong slaves who were totally dependent on humans. That's just one scenario.

I could be wrong but LordMagnus mentioned centrifuges and test tubes. I think the bestiality forum reference was for finding a surrogate to bring the hybrid to term. I don't think he was talking about a physical mating to achieve his goal.

We've discussed this at length right here.

I don't watch any shows that celebrates idiocy (except a little C-Span now and then). I've never seen the show and I wouldn't watch the movies. I've seen enough stupid human tricks on You-tube and Ebaum's World to know there's a whole bunch of dumb out there. I worry about a future populated by people who are willing to completely suspend brain functions for a laugh or a buck. You do know that "Jackass" is a euphemism for "complete and utter idiot"? It has nothing to do with horses usually. I wonder if the SPCA has investigated this movie.

Don't some species of flies eat their way out of the mother to be born?

Baseball is a game where the best outcome is that your opponents never hit the ball. Spectators enjoy the game because this never happens.

Not for nuclear payloads but I believe they are used to launch satellites (at least the Russians do). And I think the whole world breathes a sigh of relief when scheduled launches actually do turn out to be for commercial purposes.

I think that's got to be one of the dumbest forums I've ever seen. Not the concept, the content. Page after page of, "You're an idiot!" "No, *you're* an idiot!" What a waste of bandwidth. And since Morbius joined just to tell us about it, I have to assume he's part of the idiocy and wants to promote the site. Misery loves company.

Arrr, absolutely. And many of us could sail her but does anyone know how a ship is put together so it won't sink? There are rules for such (not just guidelines, arrrr). Think about this: you know this apocalypse is about to take place. You have just enough time to get your household members to safety *and* put together one backpack (approx 20-25 kilos or 50 pounds) worth of *stuff* you currently have in your house. What do you bring?

Why post like you're going to be banned again soon? Continued posts like this will just ensure it. It was unnecessary and it's been fixed. Can we move on, please? Perhaps we can chalk this experience up to Science and Politics not always mixing as well as we would like.

I think I would want YT (and family) and insane_alien nearby when it all happened. I could mobilize and manage any people we came across but I have little expertise in practical applications. Just some carpentry and other various trade skills that assume I have materials and tools at hand. Not sure if I could make a good 2x4 from a tree (we still have trees, right?). Again, it makes a big difference what kind of apocalypse we're talking about. I just saw a History channel episode on how many prophecies mirror the Mayan calendar's prediction that the world will end in December of 2012. One speculation was a magnetic pole shift occurs and earth's lithosphere turns around it's molten center like the skin of a balloon will shift around the water inside. With that sort of cataclysm earthquakes and storms would flatten everything but not necessarily burn everything up. There would still be tools and remnants of our old life available if you can dig them out. In this scenario I think we stand a better chance of progressing even within the first generation after apocalypse. We'd need to burn a lot of bodies and figure safe ways to move debris to find what we're looking for but at least we'd have The Resourceful One working on building a radio transmitter out of silverware and chewing gum while insane_alien figures out how to purify water for us all. And of course I would be there to supervise and mitigate disputes....

If we've survived (we = those of us who post in this thread) I assume the radiation levels are acceptable. Has civilization merely been knocked down or has it been burned beyond usefulness? Can we salvage much or do we start from scratch? Do we have a way of communicating or are we just small independent roving bands? One thing I can anticipate is people with lots of knowledge but little practical experience or application, like knowing how to fix cars but cars don't exist anymore. Or like knowing all about electricity except how to extrude wire and build a generator or motor. I think morality would suddenly become very important. With no police or military to rein in people's urges honor and good reputation would become valuable commodities. I think you need to set more parameters. Are we talking Mad Max where salvaging the old way of life is possible or are we emerging from caves to find the old world completely gone?

Any other reasoning I could put down to opinion and be cool with it but this argument just doesn't work at all. Think of the ramifications if the baby is in danger late in the pregnancy. If the choice is between saving the mother and saving the baby (assuming you can't do both) you would choose to save a baby that will have no mother. You condemn a person with life experience and mature thoughts and feelings who is most likely a productive societal member for the longer *potential* life a baby might have. Mothers make a choice to be a host. If the baby they host has more rights than the mother how long do you think having babies will be a sound choice? Every miscarriage would need to be investigated to ensure the mother didn't violate the baby's superior rights. What a nightmare! The *potential* life of a baby shouldn't be a factor. Babies aren't guaranteed 80-90 years of life and the mother has already proven herself as a vital human being. Most parents would sacrifice themselves for their children anyway but setting a legal precedent that gives the kids more rights than the parents absolutely wouldn't work.

Your flooring could be loose near the bag as well. As you walk by the floor moves up and down, causing the bag to shift each time until it falls.

Most likely the dosage recommendation errs on the side of caution. For some people a cup of coffee too late in the day would ensure sleeplessness that night so the NoDoz could have the same effect. People like you that have a higher tolerance for caffeine may have to adjust your intake accordingly, but I don't think it's a good idea to slam three of them with a scone like you might with java. Once it's already in your system it's harder to correct too large a dose.

This site has plans for sale for US$100 (large format plans, cheaper if you get 11x17), and says it costs $500 to make. I haven't done this or endorse it, this is not a staff recommendation, and is merely the result of a quick search into the subject. One of my fantasies is to own a lot of land and travel from site to site on it in ultralights and gyrocopters. They are simply too cool.

I think this is very important. If someone else has a site started that is close to what you're looking for then perhaps you could offer your help and save yourself 80% of the work. Starting from scratch is tough and it doesn't guarantee a better chance at success. Or perhaps you could offer to help with AS level chemistry revision for an existing science site that lacks such help. An existing site almost always means an existing user-base. I'm always amazed at the number of people who come to SFN looking for advice on starting up some kind of science forum where people can go to talk about their favorite subject with like-minded sophisticates. Why is it so hard to find?!

If you do find anything definitive about this subject be careful of generalizations. Jerkiness is in the eye of the beholder. You may think someone is being rude to you when they are merely being abrupt due to lack of time. One person's pride is another person's arrogance. And insults can be perceived from an infinite amount of sources. We tend to want to categorize people into groups, like jerks, idiots, drunks, helpful, nice, skillful. It helps us quickly make judgments but makes it difficult to get beyond first impressions. Remember that everything we do is done in context. There's a whole story behind the actions of every person.

Not according to a study by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. But maybe they make more money from bone grafts for aging starlets.

There's a skin-type layer on the outside of the bone, then the compact bone (the dense stuff), then the spongy bone (more porous), then the blood vessels and marrow. Most of your bones is not marrow. Bones do change shape as we age and can make us shorter. I don't think this is due to erosion as much as gravity and weakening. Facial bones alter and it can give us wrinkles and sags we didn't have before.

I've always suspected something like this was happening. The monkeys in my keyboard tried to tell me....

You'd have to have something inhuman to do the flipping. Humans can't regulate the muscles in the hand to the degree required to flip a coin *exactly* the same way each time, especially over a period long enough for accurate sampling. This is your element of chance in a vacuum. Slight differences in the way you flip the coin will provide differences between the two tests.

Sorry to wait so long to respond, the tree, but my momentum got lost amongst the other posts, which were much more interesting than my thoughts at the time. I don't know if you're being serious here, but what I thought was subtle (at least for the intended audience) was that being "manly" in the sense these two guys are talking about is really stupid and pointless. Like the pain of pulling out a handful of chest hair can compare to the pain of giving birth (no one calls living through that pain being "womanly"). So their reaction to accidental kissing is a stupid and pointless one, which should suggest that it's really no big deal if two guys kiss each other. _____________________________________________________________________________________ I would still like to point out that two guys kissed on one of the most-watched sports programs on US television. Reform takes small steps if it's going to be effective and I can guarantee that, even though the ad was pulled, it set a precedent and sent a signal that two guys kissing is a little more acceptable on prime-time TV. GLAAD should be thrilled that a taboo barrier has been broken. And they get some free press to express their indignation. On TV during the 60's, if a man and woman were in the same bed one of them had to have one foot on the floor to show they weren't having sex. Some people were offended even still by a married couple being shown in the bedroom. A line was drawn and television moved forward and has been trying to move the line a little farther every few years. As far as the "gays can't be manly" inference, didn't the guys in the commercial qualify what their idea of "manly" was? They ripped out chest hair, they didn't pump iron or fight a fire or help children into the lifeboats of a sinking ship. None of the gay guys I know want to be "manly" if it involves being stupid and pointless.

In the 2.5 years since anyone posted on this thread we Americans have repented and have sold all our speedy guzzlers. Fafalone now drives a Prius.