Phi for All

Good call. Doh! I think you're both headstrong and unrelenting. I think you're both passionate in your views. I think you're belaboring the point and you're lucky Mokele hasn't shown up in Georgetown to knock over all your buildings. I think Mokele feels that stomping hard on a fire keeps it from spreading. And I think he has big feet. And I think any arousal I might have felt about this thread has been diminished to the point of non-existance.

And what happens when someone files a complaint because they overheard someone using it as a term of endearment? Not everyone who hears a conversation feels the same way about the words used.

That's another good one everybody should learn, that in science "theory" does not mean "idea" (ala, "What's your theory?"). The popular sound byte "conspiracy theory" has also harmed science tremendously by equating theory with wacky paranoia.

Raising the taxes to the level the Europeans pay is a bit extreme (I'm still smiling about paying $1.93/gallon at Costco on Monday). Personally a bump at the pump won't affect me that much as I work from home and my business driving is reimbursed by the company but if we go to $6+ a gallon (even over a five year period) the ripple effects would be terrible. How much more am I going to pay for goods and services that use gasoline and will it be totally offset by the few thousand dollars I save in income tax? I think the UKers will tell you that Inland Revenue cuts them no slack. The problem with promising less income taxes if we pay higher sales taxes (on anything) is that the income taxes may just creep up again anyway. I've seen this happen with local government. Lottery funds that go to the parks system sound great, but then the parks system budget is adjusted and the surplus is used elsewhere - zero savings to the taxpayer. In the corporate sector an announced decrease in cereal prices is offset by a higher price for bread, and within a few years the cereal prices are right back to where they used to be - and now bread costs twice as much.

Hopefully you've learned that if you *mean* in general you should *say* in general. Some mistakes can't be left unchallenged or it lends them tacit support. You've tapdanced around this issue to support yourself but in the end you made one mistake and your refusal to acknowledge it has led to a really stupid argument and time has been wasted. Nothing is "implied" when you try to make a controversial blanket statement about half the world's population. Everyone on this board has made these same mistakes. Admit it and move on.

Everyone should know that the term "scientific fact" is mostly used by people who know nothing about science. Unfortunately most people can't be bothered by detailed research histories and gathered data so they fall prey when someone backs up their totally bogus assertions with the phrase, "It's a scientific fact!"

Ya think? Make sure you use a gang that has a no-payback policy. And get a receipt. If the police believe you the gang certainly won't. Guess who the gang targets next? At the very least you will be blackmailed for the rest of your life. Don't forget about all those undercover cops who nail people looking to hire a hit. Asking around about stuff like that is what pays an informant's rent. They'll snitch you out in a heartbeat.

Oh yes, I've heard about it. From you, as a matter of fact, over at PhysOrgForum, where you joined and posted this identical thread. Why the sneaky tactics? If you were serious about wanting rigorous review you should be willing to answer some questions and provide some data. Just because you claim your reactor will solve the energy crisis, cancer and air pollution all at the same time doesn't mean we won't listen.

Calling all women docile compared to all men, especially in the presence of all men, comes off as hostile and discriminatory, thus an example of misogyny. In addition to being a rather laughable generalization. Watch some C-Span, the WWF or the audience for Oprah. Or in the real world working for companies like mine. Actually I'm having a hard time thinking of any woman I know as "docile".

Go ahead and use the references. You're a trusted member and it sounds like you've found a great product and are simply entusiastically passing along a good reference. We probably jumped the gun when you first posted because we get so many Rolex ads and people joining just to post links to sales sites. Sorry, sorry, it'll never happen again, and by never I mean... somewhat frequently.

You don't confront friends, period. You talk to them, you reason with them. You didn't tell us what they claimed about the stones. Are they saying something like, "Hematite is said to have healing powers" or "Garnet is believed to have the power to cleanse the blood". Both those statements are true. Or are they saying, "Opals have been clinically proven to cure depression"?

The odds of hitting an asteroid with a manned spaceship are... astronomical. Proximity detection equipment and a few quick thruster bursts should take care of it. Absolutely, to a certain extent. That's what thrusters are for but you need more and more thrust to go faster and faster.

Intersystem travel is going to take a very long time so you need some way to keep your scientists in stasis during the trip (unless they will be raising families of scientists for the return trip). Btw, creating an artificial gravity isn't that difficult with present technologies. The design of the ship would have to let it spin to create the effect. I remember hearing that a trip from Earth to Proxima Centauri would take 70,000+ years.

And I would advise not sending any email to Mr. Sphincter. Feel free to give a salary range if need be.

It's your rank. Post more and it changes, making you a larger particle. General Discussion posts don't count though.

Ditto. For instance, the way to avoid those clever homicide detectives is to make it look like an accident. No murder, no murder investigation. There was a great Columbo episode where the killer almost got away with it by waiting for his victim at the end of his nightly swim before bed. When the guy was stepping up out of the pool the murderer brained him with a chunk of ice. He made sure the guy sank and then tossed the ice in the pool (no murder weapon was found). It was assumed by by all the investigators that the guy slipped on the diving board and drowned after hitting his head, total accidental death. All the investigators except Columbo....

Bubble wrap not allowed? I'd go with two condoms, inflated with an egg in each, with custom cardboard boxes and cardboard shims around and between each. Duct tape the cardboard.

Oh, you started a thread, good. I'd go with bubble wrap for protection, duct tape for weight. Most teachers give extra credit for duct tape. I know I would.

I didn't say our instincts are irrelevant. I said you arguing that humans haven't been civilised very long was irrelevant to my point. You were raised in a civilised society and even your single generation (at least most of it) has been trained to avoid actions which might land them in jail or worse. If there is a good chance you'll be caught, the civilized person avoids it. Let's stick to one subject to avoid strawmen arguments. And I'm saying that martial law in times of war forgives many actions which would otherwise be illegal. Bringing up rape in war is really beside my point. I'm pretty sure. If I was 100% guaranteed that I would never get caught, that my actions would never be found out, and that there would never be any repercussions, I would still never consider forcing myself on any woman. There isn't a single bit of me that would take any pleasure in hurting or demeaning an unwilling human being in the name of sexual pleasure. A very Hasty Generalization.

Let me think about it. No.

Irrelevant for my argument to your premise. Civilized humans let their brains override biological imperatives all the time. It doesn't matter how long humans have been doing it; if you've been raised all your life to equate wrongdoing with incarceration or execution you think several times before committing such an act. This is a more likely scenario for continued rape than procreation. If you got away with it once, your fear of the justice system is lessened. Appeal to Tradition? Come on, in times of war a different set of rules comes in to play. And I would venture to guess that rape during war in modern times is not condoned as much as it used to be. Spoils of war is not an acceptable excuse, at least not in major countries. This is a nature vs. nurture argument now. I'm a 6' 3" blond Viking and you don't see me going out and sacking the neighborhood with a woman over each shoulder (at least not on weeknights). Reminds me of a joke: Brodar the Viking king is addressing his assembled men before they leave the boats to sack the sleepy English fishing village. Brodar: "Men, tonight we will sack the village!" Men: "Yay!" Brodar: "We will kill all the men..." Men: "Yay! Brodar: "... and rape all the women!" Men: "YAAAAAY!!!" Brodar: "And men... try to get it right this time!"

I think you're right. If liberals tended to think for the same reasons men rape we'd all be in trouble. But do you have any evidence that liberals think? Civilized human society is a long way from it's animal cousin's equivalent in nature. If chimps were incarcerated (or worse) for rape wouldn't the majority learn to avoid it? So it's beneficial to pass along the genes of people who have rejected the mores of their society? Sorry, I don't buy it. Propogation doesn't override survival and if rape can get you removed from society then where's your other chances to propogate? I think rapists either want to get back in prison or their sociopathic behavior overrides normal societal concerns for consequences.

I use my Moderator Thread Tools. Works great. Why? [/smartass]

I think it was supposed to be "battery chargers". Kind of tough to leave a charge laying around. I've heard the biggest Spelling mistake was casting Shannon Doherty in Beverly Hills 90210 (sorry, my company's HQ is near Hollywood and I have to hear these jokes). In the USA (not "America") we prefer management. We take the Aussies and put "U" in labor.

This *is* a science forum, so be prepared for criticism. Your site is visually assaulting. Too many colors makes people want to look elsewhere. Phrases like, "Some mysteries [note: plural]such as 'The Da Vinci Code' is [note: singular] believed to be true..." show the true reader that you're not a true writer. "The Ancient Scrolls"? Come on, too tabloid. If you want people like Dawkins to read your book you better drop the Enquirer pitch. "Does this book shed more light on the mystery?" Really, really doubt it. But I'm a skeptic.