Phi for All

Some of the problems we had with "nature" is the tendency of fruits and vegetables to be covered in insects as they quickly rot in the outdoor markets. So we developed canning technology to make them safer and last longer, and it was a complete game-changer. Now though, we turn to "nature" to save us from technology, and I'm not sure it's wise in many instances.

Are you writing papers on these topics for your classes in school? Is the assignment really only about "men" in engineering, or about "people"? "Men and society" benefit from having engineers, and I suppose engineers would have a lot less to do if people didn't band together in societies, but it's such a broad question that I find it hard to believe you "didn't find any resources regarding this topic". Do you really have no idea why a society might benefit from having people who can design mechanical workings on a large scale, or why an engineer might benefit from having people interested in living in denser population centers?

! Moderator Note Moved to Homework Help.

Basis points, which reflect percentage change in value, and each represents 0.01%, so this increase in interest rates is a quarter of one percent.

Not in any scientific sense. Theory is as strong as it gets in science. I suggest your suggestion renders the term meaningless. I'm assuming you define "hard" as "a bar I can set wherever I want". Theories have models and mountains of evidence to support them. When they lack observational support, such as with String Theory, we rely more heavily on the models, but they still have to have evidence if they're considered a theory. No evidence? Are you using your earlier definition of "hard evidence", because his work had plenty of observational evidence, and much of it was based on experiments carried out by others. His explanation solved the mystery with the orbital precession of Mercury. His explanations wouldn't have been credible at all if "he had no evidence". You make assertions rather than ask questions or pose problems, and many of those are either incomplete or just plain wrong. It makes you appear to be doing it consciously to waste time or provoke reactions. I wanted you to know so you can adjust your posting style, or at least know why you get so much pushback on many of your posts.

SuperSlim has been suspended for two weeks for uncivil personal comments. Attacking people isn't as strong a strategy as attacking their ideas, and name-calling should be beneath intelligent humans.

! Moderator Note Moved from Classical Physics to Homework Help.

Her name is Marina Ovsyannikova, and she's been an employee at Russia's Channel One state TV, and she chose to interrupt a heavily watched news show Monday night. She's definitely a hero!

Since this is just one possible outcome out of an almost infinite array of outcomes, why do you think this article's author is correct? I'm only interested in why this is worth any amount of time thinking about, unless one is writing fiction about it, and then it's quite obviously up to the author. It seems to be a topic that probably has about 7 billion different opinions, each unique and equally meaningless. Edit to add: Over the time periods you're asking about, I don't think the even most educated biologists could do more than guess at how evolution will affect our overall appearance. But this is just an argument from incredulity, so I'm willing to be educated.

I figured the OP would eventually claim the answer is: the rooster.

Uncomfortable is also a word a scientist wouldn't use in this instance. It has nothing to do with comfort. Natural world, use science. If it's outside that, you simply can't apply science. It's like measuring the width of your driveway with a poem. It's pointless, inaccurate, and sloppy. Isn't your faith in your religion enough? Why warp the methodology to suit your beliefs?

To date, we see no evidence of this. Science is only interested in describing the natural world. The supernatural can't be measured, predicted, or observed, so science is the wrong tool. Your conclusions in this instance don't seem to follow a methodology "somebody with a scientific background" would ever use.

I admit to being far behind the times as well. I quickly gave up on FB (after really high hopes of a good family platform) and haven't touched it in the last ten years or so. My experience with the algorithms is somewhat recent. Google news uses them, and it almost makes me want to go back to print newspapers. I signed up for TikTok and immediately experienced the way my choices brought more of the same. I've enjoyed much of the work I've seen there, but it can't be good to only see things you like or agree with.

Hate to burst your bubbles, but discussion forums are like the OG of social media. Forums & chat rooms were staples of the early web. The added algorithms seem to be what causes the problems that have been brought up so far.

Now that I know you aren't going to bother educating yourself by reading trusted links I post, I'm wondering how you think discussion will help? It sounds like you're going to preach and ignore what others say, and that's basically blogging. Discussion means you actually engage with others to remove ignorance. It works beautifully, but not the way you're doing it. If you aren't listening, you're soapboxing, and why would I want to discuss science with you? No disrespect, but nobody has time for that.

So you didn't read the information I gave you from the NASA site? If you continue to remain "neutral" afterwards, I would imagine there's nothing that would change your mind, and that suggests you don't want it to be true. Some folks think what you're doing is being a good skeptic, but a good skeptic not only questions what they're told, they also dig deep and find the best current explanation. Skeptics are NOT fence-sitters, so if you've remained "neutral" all this time, it's most likely because you're resisting what you're trying to learn.

You'd think: https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal

This is badly out of line with current science, where consensus on the subject is based on the data. I politely suggest you educate yourself instead of making these blanket assessments, which are often perpetuated by those who stand to gain from ignoring the present climate crisis. IOW, you sound like you're being paid to spread bad info.

Please check your paranoia at the door, and step away from the thread if you need to.

I'm remembering the last time gas prices were this high, under Bush II in 2008. It had a great deal to do with the decisions to fully move into electric car production. People didn't care as much about clean air as they did affordable driving, but whatever got the ball rolling, I guess.

Defining "a good life" seems like the purpose of life. You think, and you know things. And you're a big grandkid pillow.

deepend has been banned for trolling, and we hope they get some professional help.

! Moderator Note The subject is too important for shallow and dismissive treatment, so I'm closing this thread. Please follow the other threads we have on the war in Ukraine.

Mine is Tiera Guinn: https://www.engineergirl.org/40724/Tiera-Fletcher-Guinn (after hypervalent_iodine, of course!) Sounds like "All lives matter". The title is "Women in Science".

This is called circular logic (which is no logic at all). You don't like Aristotle so Aristotle is wrong. And then you top it off by giving what you think is the opinion of aliens from other planets, as if that had anything to do with rational conversation. Here's that preaching thing again. I never used the word "entertain", yet you devote a whole paragraph to it after quoting me. Is this just a random thought, or was it in response to something someone else said? It's a total crutch that you use to oppress yourself and others. It's made you think that 3 out of 4 people are wrong about everything. I think you need more help than we can give you here, friend.