Phi for All

When is your sentence up? Should we send you a cake with a file in it?

I think for many it's not so much hearing or refusing to believe the facts, it's their selective approach of only taking in what conforms to their own preconceived opinions. The number of people who are unwilling to change based on new knowledge would probably appall us all. You say this: And they hear this:

It looks like Beef is simply touting the new hit single from Vb5, which has a very looooong title. Bet his pinkies are tired.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it would scare the willies out of the two major US parties if a charismatic independent came along and everybody suddenly declared they were actually going to vote this time. Extreme policies notwithstanding, it is not in most politicians interest to have everyone vote. In the US the two main parties insure that special interests only have two candidates to fund.

I have always understood that a referendum vote was like saying, "Shall we put it to a vote? All those in favor...." As Skye mentions, it's a vote to accept or reject a proposal, but the proposal is not like, "Shall we allow abortions in Portugal?" It's more like, "Shall we allow a new abortion law to be proposedfor a vote?"

Actually, in looking back over the wording, you're right that the use of referendum is inconsistent with the later usage of "another popular vote". A referendum is a vote to see if the people want to have a vote. A popular vote sounds like the actual voting on the issue. Clarity is more important than being succint when reporting the news (reporters aren't paid by the word anymore, are they?).

I would say since abortion is currently illegal there and the referendum was defeated, the referendum was probably to allow a vote to overturn the current law.

Sounds like bait and switch magic. A piece of plexiglass could be substituted for the cut, while a pre-cut piece of glass is hidden under the plexi. Bringing his hand out of the water provides a distraction for dropping the plexi (which is practically invisible in water) so you can now check out the "cut" peice of glass. White pebbles at the bottom of the turtle tank would aid in the deception. Water has no effect on glass in terms of making it more porous or soft enough to cut.

While I see your point that the law was correctly applied, I can also see XPC clouding the judgement of those who wrote the law. The judges should have enough discretion to allow them to ascertain whether there was a sexual motive for the unlawful restraint. Without that motive, the defendant can still be guilty of breaking the law without having to register as a sex offender.

I'll assume you wanted a discussion and were not just starting a thread to make statements. I disagree with just about everything you've posted, starting with the title. Science is not a religion based on belief, and needs no church. Evolution as a theory is not concerned with enemies or friends, since it is not a belief system or a stance. It is a process of change. Adherence to scientific method requires no "acceptable" IQ, nor does it require a special personality. The scope and breadth of science is, in fact, a good argument for personalities and capabilities of all types. Welcome to the world of science, now that I can support.

Since it seems to be all about control, I look for the money and power trails. Since this discussion is about PC that gets out of hand and starts being legislated into XPC, I would watch out for politicians who use it to gains quick support and make them look caring and responsive to the "will" of the people. It's actually just catering to the selfish mob mentality. Who makes money when books have to be reprinted to correct certain un-PC words and phrases? Who profits when medical professionals have to divert resources to try to correct the sources of poverty rather than simply treating the ills of the poor? Who gains power when they lobby either for a law making English the US national language or for a law respecting immigrant's rights to speak the language of their culture? Perhaps our fears (which I mentioned as a cause in my earlier post) are simply a tool that the behavior gestapo uses against us. I see academia as another tool for them to use, trying to teach XPC to young minds eager for change that lack the wisdom to see that broad policy is already in place to handle most situations. Who sets the curriculum in state run institutions? Personal accountability is lost when we let the behavior gestapo dictate right and wrong. The consequences of improper social behavior are a better long-term deterrent than XPC punishments.

When it comes to civil rights XPC, the left is probably more to blame. But there are other aspects that I see spread evenly across the board, and even predominantly towards the right. PC and XPC are attempts to reset political and social boundaries, and this is what corrupt leaders from the right and left attempt to do to set new standards they can control. These leaders prey on selfish desires to punish those with unfavorable ideas, and let's face it, the right more often criticizes the left for unpopular new ideas. The left views the right as "stick-in-the-muds" who are resistant to favorable change. I think you are unfairly pointing partisan fingers. XPC is an attempt to control behavior, to set new standards, and as such it is practiced by selfish conservatives and liberals who see themselves as the new paradigm of morality. The "behavior gestapo" has equal amounts of right and left.

I don't think it's a partisan thing. I think PC has come about as a consequence of the fear that's been escalating in the US ever since the Cold War. People who wondered if they were going to wake up to nuclear destruction are now even more worried that a terrorist bomb will go off on their daily commute. As tempers flare due to added stress and fear the PC measures start to proliferate to help people feel in control of their lives and hopefully set some guidelines on behavior. But the guidelines were already there, and we're just forgetting them in our panic. We lose common sense when political correctness is allowed to masquerade as social justice. The balance has tipped and we're letting politicians pass legislation that only takes fear into consideration. This soothes our sense of justice temporarily until problems like this one start happening.

There is a battery in the base. I had something simpler than this where a round metal top would spin on the base day and night until the battery ran out.

False. The wheel has a magnet that powers a coil and a battery in the base. There's a second coil wound opposite to the first and the current from the battery makes an EM field that keeps the wheel moving. I've seen things like this before and I doubt very seriously that the system could produce enough additional electricity to power that light bulb. There would only be enough to keep the wheel rolling back and forth. See where the cord from the bulb trails off the page instead of being attached directly to the base? This is NOT perpetual motion, and it's ESPECIALLY NOT a power generator.

Do I need to split this off into Politics? Or are we starting another conspiracy theory? How about this for a conspiracy to chew on? You have arms manufacturers and arms merchants and professional militaries who have multi-billions of dollar industries and budgets to take care of. How interested are they in peace breaking out all over the world? How much of the tension in the world today is natural and how much is manufactured by their... "marketing departments", for lack of a better term? Stupid theory or logical free-market consequence?

I do have to say that when I saw one of Israel's more trusted newspapers print the story of Bush telling Abbas about his little talk with God, I took it at face value. Upon further review, it seems the quote was taken from notes made by Abbas' translator, so it is third hand at best, and a bad translation at worst. We all know Bush doesn't stint at blending Church and State whenever possible, but I will retract my earlier statement using the alleged quote based on it's questionable source.

Btw, your last one gave me goose bumps, you vixen!

Though most of these stories (and all the ones mentioned here) are completely unfounded, it worries me not a little that the more we make the sound byte "conspiracy theory" synonymous with "whacko ranting", the easier it becomes to pull off an actual conspiracy.

^^Is this your new avatar?^^^ And how is your magic wall regenerating those beers?

Absolutely. http://www.collegeboard.com/csearch/majors_careers/profiles/majors/100737.html I remember someone telling me that an environmental science consultant came to their office building to study how the workers interacted with their work environment. Made some great recommendations which were never acted on, iirc.

I think we've hit prime vacation time. It'll pick up in a week or so. In the meantime, shall we sing a song?

Rest up, we'll want details later, atm-style. So glad to hear you're safe.

Welcome aboard, new people! If you're curious about your 0 post counts, it's because posts in General Discussion don't count towards them. So proceed to the Science forums, take chances, get dirty, make mistakes and enjoy! We're glad to have you here.

I feel that the reporter should still shield the source. There are avenues the informant can take to maintain as much anonymity as possible in identifiying the fire-shouter. It's ultimately their decision to come forward with the testimony. Pointing the police in the right direction often leads to confessions and useable circumstantial evidence, and shielding informants needs to be guaranteed to secure their cooperation. In this particular example, let's say the informant wants to protect his identity because it was a porn theater and he was supposed to be working. To protect his job, his family and his reputation he informs a reporter who points the police in the right direction. You can bet the reporter will keep the informant apprised about the progress in the case. Even if their were fatalities involved, it is still up to the informant to come forward to testify, just like any other eyewitness. The fact that they had enough guts to come forward and at least tell a reporter in confidence should not be held against them. Many people won't even get that involved. I don't think it will turn out to be Rove. I think he is the slimiest of all the DC spinners, but I also think he is too smart to do his own dirty work.