Leaderboard

No. Instead say, "Want quick-read threads? Vote YES!" l personally dislike the idea. Forcing science discussions to be short goes against the nuanced and layered information structure of most explanations of natural phenomena. This is exactly why pop-sci articles cause as much trouble as they do to spur interest in the sciences. An explanation or argument should take as long as it takes. I think we already have a Quick Question thread for simple answers. I'm not sure what the objective is for a whole subforum of it, but if it attracts those who can't be bothered to read details, it sounds like it will mostly be good for dragging our reputation down as a serious science discussion site.

I can only assume, then, that you don't know what the words "objective" and "subjective" mean. You are making a purely subjective guess at intelligence, possibly influenced by the known date of birth of the person, and think that people should take you seriously for some reason. This is a science forum. Unless you can produce some objective (i.e. independently measurable) data instead of your guesses, no-one is going to take you seriously.

Sure it does. What is punished under the law is not consistent between cultures.

Reagan funded a secret war in Central America by illegally selling guns to Iran. Funny how most conservatives seem to overlook that fact. (Definitely not directing this at you) You did, to your credit. + 1 for objectivity.

Ok, I’ll bite, what’s your definition for justice?

Per my example. Here is a little more. While Reagan's plan did lower taxes on the rich overall it also expanded the personal exemption and the earned income tax credit. This was a big help to the middle class. Reagan also eliminated corporate tax breaks and raised the tax on capital gains. Do you see any of this in Trump's proposal? I don't. I see Trump lowering the the top tax bracket so thats similar to Reagan but it ends there. I see a repeal on the estate tax and I see a new loophole created by reducing the rate on pass-through entities, allowing law firms and hedge fund managers to avoid higher tax rates. I also see that the Tax Policy Center estimates that the top 1% will enjoy 80% of the benefits from Trump’s plan and that a third of all middle-class taxpayers will be paying more in taxes by 2027. Why compare one past administration to another past administration? Why not compare to the current one? No I am pointing out that they are different than they were in 1980. Reagan had plans to tear down a wall. Trump has plans to build one. Reagan presided over the end of a cold war. Trump seems dead set on starting a hot one. No I have never claimed that. I did claim it would be impossible to defend such an absurd position. Thats not true either. I have already told you why I referenced it and it had nothing to do with claiming "Reagan was successful, to levels greater than anyone since"

To put that another way, they could explain it in 5 minutes but you wouldn't really understand what a derivative was. At best you might have grasped some useful (but not completely accurate) analogies and have a rough idea of why it is useful. If you did an introductory course (over several weeks or months) you would understand a lot more (you wouldn't need 500 books, just one good one). But you still wouldn't understand everything.You could take several years doing a PhD and then do a decade of post-doc research and I suspect you still wouldn't understand it completely.

Wrong, actually. The expert could explain it to another expert (or someone with a fairly solid mathematical education) in 5 minutes. If they gave the same explanation to someone without the requisite knowledge, it would take the same 5 minutes, plus an indeterminate amount of time for each question the expert explanation creates in the mind of the math neophyte. Does that make sense, that you need a certain amount of knowledge to be able to follow a more sophisticated argument?

Yet you compose this response on a computer, did you or yours enable its purchase, independently or did you benefit from there industry? Or are you just talking bollox?

None at all... But your forefathers got rich because they did just that, what right do you have to ignore the consequences and live off the proceeds?

The interactive model can be found at: Action Dynamics of the Local Supercluster Interactive Model Source: Action Dynamics of the Local Supercluster - The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 850, Number 2, December 2017 (free preprint)

And I'm sure there are people (whether Republican or Democrat ) who don't have to take responsibility for their bad actions because they never behaved badly towards women. So what if he takes responsibility for his actions ??? He did commit them ! I ( and his victims ) don't care if he's a good or bad Politician, Democrat or Republican. He's a flawed human being who happens to be in a position of power, and preys on women. Why do you insist on getting down in the mud with waitforufo, and making this a discussion about which politics is more 'honorable' ? I don't remember politics being mentioned at all in the OP ( although we all knew ), so why take the bait ?

None, thank you alien friend. We'll never learn for ourselves otherwise. How about comparing notes on maths and art?

In my experience it is not quite that straightforward, except maybe at the extremes. Rather, it is very easy to gauge ones understanding in dealing with a specific topic or problem. But they may fail rather badly in other aspects (and of course there is a huge middle ground in between). There are students who grapple very long with abstract concepts. But put them in the lab where these things go together and are applied, they suddenly outperform those that did very well in tests. The easiest to spot are typically the lazy underperformers, who basically do not make any effort whatsoever (either because they think they are smart enough to get by without work or those who just don't give a damn).

"The British began their Sinai and Palestine Campaign in 1915.[88] The war reached southern Palestine in 1917, progressing to Gaza and around Jerusalem by the end of the year.[88] The British secured Jerusalem in December 1917.[89] They moved into the Jordan valley in 1918 and a campaign by the Entente into northern Palestine led to victory at Megiddo in September. The British were formally awarded the mandate to govern the region in 1922.[90] The non-Jewish Palestinians revolted in 1920, 1929, and 1936.[91] In 1947, following World War II and The Holocaust, the British Government announced its desire to terminate the Mandate, and the United Nations General Assembly adopted in November 1947 a Resolution 181(II) recommending partition into an Arab state, a Jewish state and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem.[92] The Jewish leadership accepted the proposal, but the Arab Higher Committee rejected it; a civil war began immediately after the Resolution's adoption. The State of Israel was declared in May 1948." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_(region) "After a period of stalemate in Southern Palestine from April to October 1917, General Edmund Allenby captured Beershebafrom the III Corps. Having weakened the Ottoman defences, which had stretched almost continually from Gaza to Beersheba, they were finally captured by 8 November, after the Battle of Tel el Khuweilfe, the Battle of Hareira and Sheria and the Third Battle of Gaza, when the pursuit began. During the subsequent operations, about 50 miles (80 km) of formerly Ottoman territory was captured as a result of the EEF victories at the Battle of Mughar Ridge, fought between 10 and 14 November, and the Battle of Jerusalem, fought between 17 November and 30 December. Serious losses on the Western Front in March 1918, " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_and_Palestine_Campaign What has accorded since is obviously problematic but I think it is important to address how the region became so destabilized to begin with. I think a lot of people in the West just accept that the region has been constantly disputed and at conflict since biblical times without any real appreciation for what has happened to the region over just the last hundred years. "In World War I, the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany. As a result, it was embroiled in a conflict with Great Britain. Under the secret Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916, it was envisioned that most of Palestine, when freed from Ottoman control, would become an international zone not under direct French or British colonial control. Shortly thereafter, British foreign minister Arthur Balfour issued the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which promised to establish a "Jewish national home" in Palestine[293]but appeared to contradict the 1915–16 Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, which contained an undertaking to form a united Arab state in exchange for the Great Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire in World War I. McMahon's promises could have been seen by Arab nationalists as a pledge of immediate Arab independence, an undertaking violated by the region's subsequent partition into British and French League of Nations mandates under the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 1916, which became the real cornerstone of the geopolitics structuring the entire region. The Balfour Declaration, likewise, was seen by Jewish nationalists as the cornerstone of a future Jewish homeland." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine Israel was created in 1948 however the British had been working on the territory for decades prior. To say Palestine was a few Nomadic tribes isn't accurate. It had formerly been part of the Ottoman Empire and wrestled away during WW1 by the British and the territory purposely segregated to make way for the future creation of a Jewish state.

It seems a very sensible approach. Not least because the current approach- legal prohibition- clearly doesn't work, and never did.

I thought you had accepted my explanation. But never mind. But other people have posted posted information about experiments that claim to be able to answer the question. But feel free to ignore that as well. I don't think this is a scientific question. It is a philosophical one. I don't think philosophy does peer review (I might be wrong). Yeah, right. Or maybe people don't really care. Or they are pissed off that you have ignored the many helpful replies you have received, and continue to throw insults around. I dunno, man.

I joined my student government and got chosen to go to my state capital with about 350 other kids to present a bill. The kids are from all over the state, from different schools, with the number of students going for the Senate is based on how many kids there are, and the number of students for the house is just any kid who's in the program. One of the requirements for presenting a bill is that you need sponsors. A sponsor in the Senate, a sponsor in the house, and you. So three people supporting every bill. But the sponsors all have to be from the same delegation, meaning I'm limited to 7 other kids to find two sponsors for. And naturally, it usually comes to "I'll sponsor your bill if you sponsor my bill, and he'll sponsor our bills if we'll sponsor his bills." And, usually, that results in sponsoring a bill that I don't particularly agree with. But, I have to defend adamantly in the Senate because I'm a sponsor for it. Which means denying facts. And whitewashing most of the bill to emphasize what the other kids would probably approve of, etc. I'm starting to realize why politicians have such a hard time just going with what they believe. Because I've also heard there are about 6 well-respected kids whos opinion in the Senate will sway most of the other kids who have been there before IF they're from the same party(Liberal vs Conservative). Which I can see how that'd apply to real life with the idea that if you don't support the big players you aren't going anywhere. Because the other party won't support you, and if you speak out against your own party then they'll supposedly speak out against your own bills. Corruption in a freaking student government, I imagine it'd be worse in the national government. In my opinion, an American education system is simply a machine that creates a member of society. Who needs free thinkers? They mess up the system. If it succeeds, you get someone who sure, may have gotten bad grades or good grades, but they're usually going to end up working some job for the rest of their life without a society driving career. If it fails, then either they succeed and become the members of society who drive it, like scientists, leaders, politicians, inventors, etc. Or. They become the unproductive members of society. Drug dealers, thieves, etc. But that's just my opinion.

You're being disingenuous, Ten oz. You can draw an association between just about anything. The fact that A Franken is in a position of power, as a comedian/entertainor or a Senator/politician is what allows him to disrespect women. And the fact that it doesn't happen just in politics, but with producers like H Weinstein, newsmen like C Rose and M Lauer, and so many others is proof that it is not a symptom of political ideology. There are plenty of threads about Democrats vs Republicans as there are about D Trump. Why does every thread have to devolve into a discussion about the polarization of American politics or D Trump's idiocy ? As I've stated previously, the polarization , which you and others seem to embrace, is what got us into this mess ( presidential idiocy ) in the first place. But if you guys want to make every thread about Republicans vs Democrats, or about D Trump, then knock yourselves out. I've said my piece and you guys ( like waitforufo ) wanna keep contributing to the problem. Majority rules.