Phi for All

13 hours ago, Sensei said:

..I remember people claiming they would be rich because a fortune teller told them so in the cards..

... and this seems quite a bit different, unless you think tarot cards are a modern technology. I also think being concerned about one's health is different than wishing you were rich.

In discussion, I'm not a big fan of "Your question is dumb" responses. Why treat someone's concern that way when you can provide some evidence that may help?

9 hours ago, PeterBushMan said:

I think there are two, SK (South Korea) and japan.

Others against the West,  or they do NOT support the West, or they say they do NOT want to take sides.

9 hours ago, PeterBushMan said:

Anyway you are NOT a smart person.

There is NO way to prove he was right.

He is a famous dumb.

"The stupid man just believes what he reads,"

---------------------------

Your President are NOT smart.

You also are NOT smart.

After 20 years, a few people will care who is the President of the USA.

On 2/21/2024 at 4:27 AM, LaurieAG said:

Yes, he's probably having enough of a struggle working out his opening speech for the "Countries who prosecute their political opponents' convention.

I hope that one isn't held on the same weekend as the "Focus on the laws broken no matter who breaks them" convention. That would be awkward.

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

The Democrats should have used this time to make her a household name, and a contender for the Presidency. Even if J Biden squaks out a win this year, they will need someone in 4 years who is known, trusted, and not a 'scary' woman.

I agree, it was definitely a missed opportunity, especially since she sort of bridges the gap for a lot of folks interested in a tough-on-crime stance. And that's where I lose interest in her, since I think it's important for the US to get out of the prison-for-profit quagmire that currently makes our entire legal system suspect. She has a plan for prison reform, but most of the problems are at the state level so I'm not sure how effective it will be. I don't really know her stance on police reform yet, but that's something else she'll feel a great deal of pressure from the states on.

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

Scary is in quotes not because of any attitude I may have, but because a large number of Americans don't seem ready or willing to have a strong woman in the Presidency.
( us Canadians; JC, Peterkin and I, had one 30+ years ago; a Conservative, even )

And isn't that weird? Why would anyone want a president/PM of either sex that they couldn't describe as "strong"? Is it better for a woman president/PM to be inoffensive and proper?

You only kept a female PM for a few months. Was she "strong", or was she a "proper" PM?

We're almost there in the US wrt electing a woman president, but it's our conservatives who stand in the way. They still revel in their misogyny and love to pound their chests, but they're also having daughters and the dim recesses of their ape brains are telling them there's a problem with the way they've been behaving.

But the age of the candidates, that's what we should be focused on...

17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Kind of a "deplorable" assumption don't you think?

Great example! A woman tells it like she sees it (and we all saw the "basket of deplorables" attack the Capitol, right?) and gets labeled "nasty", but TFG gets props for insults that don't even hit the mark.

20 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The type of assumption that probably more lead to Trump winning in 2016 than the fact that the leading proponent of those assumptions was a woman. (not claiming it wasn't a factor either plus or minus, but I think the US has been ready for a woman POTUS for some time...they just tired enough of H Clinton to allow Trump to squeak out a win)

Well, it's not my assumption, but I do think many Dems today don't believe one of the female candidates can stand up to TFG. They may be conflating them with Hillary, or they may feel women in general are more vulnerable targets on the campaign trail, but I haven't seen much support from Dems for anyone but Biden.

So we're stuck arguing between too much experience and too little experience, but the ones with all the experience are also heavily invested in our current political system. If we want to see any meaningful change, I don't think it's age we should be looking at. I'd vote for Bernie Sanders again and he's 2 years older than Biden. The rest of the candidates from both sides are already beholden to the billionaires. 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

But I do wish the Democrats had a 'stronger' candidate to field.

Did you put stronger in quotes because their best candidates are women? I think that's how many people think of Harris, Whitmer, Klobuchar, and Warren: they can't beat TFG because they're women, and TFG has already beaten a woman. 

I also think the DNC thinks this way. Despite being more liberal towards women, they'd still rather have Biden or Newsome or Cooper because they're men, and men appear "strong" when they're confident, whereas the perception is usually that confident women are "pushy" or "troublesome" or even "nasty".

More important to me than age is rejecting corporate PAC donations. It would be great to have citizen representation in this country again. It's been so long.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

There is a third option, "Denise there's some lovely filth over here".

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Do they?

You know much that is hidden, Oh Tim...

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Dirty Harry, just asked a question, jeez...

2 hours ago, eninn said:

Army and police officers / in Europe and America 🇺🇸 convert to Islam ☝️

Here's a similar thread from a few years back: Round rock, makes a rattling noise 

2 hours ago, eninn said:

Therefore , I ask you to publish the miracles of the Holy Prophet,

23 hours ago, TheVat said:

So... complaining works.  Who knew?  Look out, world!  😀

Now, about my left knee....

Go into your Leg settings and turn on Fibulove and Patellamour....

WalidKhan has been suspended for a week for continuing to spam links to a commercial site after being warned.

37 minutes ago, PeterBushMan said:

Jimmy Carter said, a powerful China is good for the USA.

Jimmy Carter also said that, China is NOT a threat to the USA.

Jimmy Carter also said that, he believe that if a person looks at his eyes, then the person is NOT going to lie to him.

So I believe he is a very stupid man.

Try not to be embarrassed by this. Many people these days don't understand complex subjects and end up making asinine statements like this. Blame your government for the education system!

28 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

When you started your career path was that your primary goal, to make as much money as you possibly could?

I suspect it wasn't, though I also suspect you preferred to be adequately compensated for your efforts, well above that of the average human on this planet. The fact that you could be successful in doing that has much to do with the fact that you live in a (far from perfect and really does need to be regulated and improved) capitalist economy.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...

Though by all means change the bathwater and remember to wash the baby...even if the lobbyists claim the water smells great...

Not that the individual level has much to do with the aims of corporate America, but I sold products on commission, and I/we wanted my wife to stay at home for a few years after my daughter was born, so yes, making as much money as I possibly could was my primary goal.

I just can't pretend things haven't changed since I entered the workforce. Today's corporate greed is worse than anything we've ever seen. Young people are hamstrung compared to how it was when I was their age, and it keeps getting worse. We can't solve many of The People's problems when We have no political representation, and so many folks are struggling to make the corporations even wealthier while slowly dying themselves. It's time to stop letting them whitewash all the corruption (which they've become so good at, since 93% of all paint and paintbrushes used in the US are made using prison slave labor). 

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Very few ventures start up for the purposes of profit or greed alone. Almost all small businesses start up with other goals, and look to making profit simply to survive.

I disagree. Every business model I've ever seen has the goal of "making money by doing/making X". They may also have other goals, but the need to maintain an increasing profit margin overshadows all else. It overshadows any moral or ethical considerations that doesn't revoke their corporate charters, and it practically guarantees that stupid, destructive decisions will be made in the name of profit when the choice between money and doing the right thing inevitably comes up.

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Matured businesses and larger corporations suffer more from naked greed and holding the bottom line as paramount.

And who's funding many of the private space ventures? 

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It's incumbent on the political system to align the success of these corporations (especially larger more powerful ones) towards what's good for the people rather than what's simply good for corporate profit and greed.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Lobbyists and questionable politics get in the way...but despite that it generally still gives better results in most areas than public enterprises...which are not devoid of effects of greed and other less than altruistic human attributes either.

Again, I disagree. Any modern US examples of "public enterprises" have been so tainted by private concerns that they're unrecognizable from past efforts that didn't rely on them. And I think public endeavors can be more easily designed to remove corruption and greed from the process, as long as we can keep politicians and lobbyists in check.

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So you feel there is no room in space for any regulated private enterprise, but think that public owned enterprise can progress safely?

Surely you would need a World Government to control that or ultimately some nation allowing private enterprise will gain dominance in space.

Exploring the space around us is going to require a better motive than naked greed and profit. Find me a corporation that puts anything above profit and we can talk about them.

OTOH, when the focus is on exploration and advancement, and all the actors are using the same basic script to regulate their behavior, then perhaps we can avoid taking all our bad habits into space. Greece just signed on to The Artemis Accords, dedicated to the peaceful uses of outer space. Hopefully the world as a whole can realize that in space, cooperation and reason beats competition and aggression. 

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It will never be perfect, but a well thought out mix of regulated private and public enterprise will generally give substantially better results than just private or just public...though often the "well thought out" part is tainted by lobbying and less than fully honest politics.

I think allowing anything offplanet that has as little compassion for humans as a corporation is a big mistake. We need to be able to trust them not to hold the whole planet hostage, and right now I sure don't. Ruthless business practices are so common on Earth, with corporations killing millions for profit, in "well thought out" campaigns of slavery, torture, and corruption. If they get offplanet and are allowed to keep those practices, there's nothing to stop them from gaining the upper hand for all time, nothing except their own altruism.

On 2/9/2024 at 2:40 PM, Photon Guy said:

My point is that the future of space travel is going in the direction of the private sector. 

Not if we wake up and realize the private sector only needs to fool us one last time to get all the marbles. In the words of Grand Moff Tarkin, you're far too trusting.

25 minutes ago, ahmet said:

support service did not start to work by itself without effect.

I don't know what this means.

25 minutes ago, ahmet said:

I mean after offer reached to me, I contacted to support service. 

I understand, and I'm asking where did you get the number for support services? Did you look it up independently, or was the contact number/link/email conveniently included in the email you received?

20 hours ago, ahmet said:

I contacted to their support service, they confirmed that that manuscript was waited my decision to accept the invitation or not.

Was the number for "their support service" in the same email as the offer?