Phi for All

Not if it was just a leg you were using....

My district caucus gave him 7 votes to Hillary's 3. I was very unhappy about the turnout, just 41 people for a really large area.

That's the link I read. Is the Broken Window Fallacy (economic) saying that the logic in the Broken Window Theory (social) is fallacious? If so, I fail to see the correlation between the two. In fact, if this is the case, it would seem BW fallacy is a Strawman fallacy since BW theory has nothing to do with economics.

Normally I send a private message requesting that a member refrain from text speak on a science forum, but you have turned off that capability. We have lots of members from around the world and English is a second language to many. Clear communication is critical here so please, no more text speak. You'll find that no one will take your comments seriously if you continue, and many Mods will simply delete your posts. Thanks for understanding.

I think the questionnaire assumed that 3-4 feet was enough to kick a 5-year-old. Any higher and you'd miss them. The questionnaire leaves out what they told the kids about us. If they told them we were coming to their house to steal their TVs we wouldn't stand a chance. Do you have any kids? Have you been on a kindergarten playground? Fearless 5-year-olds exist.

I'm out of touch with today's education requirements, but in business, if I saw someone's resume and saw that they pulled themselves out of a nosedive and managed to work hard to overcome past mistakes, I'd actually hire that person over an equally qualified person who had no problems. Someone who perseveres through adversity and overcomes huge obstacles is a wiser, more accomplished person that appreciates the benefits of what they've achieved.

My comment was a bit flip, mostly because you used the phrase, "Why is this even worth talking about?" I don't like it much when someone tries to undermine the validity of something I've invested the resources in to discuss here. And it seemed like a knee-jerk reaction because you stated that the turbulence messing with the radar was an actual fact, something that even the FAA and the military are only wondering about. You claimed to have read the whole thread but you seemed to have missed that fact. They want to do studies, remember?

Correction: half a pile of money. And CBS chose him to interview as a counterpoint. Do you suppose they'd have used his statement if his rate sheet claimed differently? Thanks for the "(apparently)"s. It would have been PC of you to only assume cronyism and corruption are my gripe. Have you ever put together an RFP for a major (6-figure +) contract? It involves a ton of work and research and no one gets paid unless the proposal is accepted. This process keeps competition high and normally forces participants to think of lean and effective measures for completing the work. Sloppy doesn't get paid and gets a black mark for the next RFP. It's a good system that awards good work. The bidding process is greatly eroded when bidders feel someone has an inside track. This alone is pretty bad but when no-bid contracts are awarded the whole process is reduced to a sham. I've put together RFPs and I've done outsourced work for major companies that felt they could increase productivity by farming out work their company wasn't focused for, or that could be done more cost-effectively than using their own people. There is absolutely no reason to outsource if you aren't saving money or increasing productivity. Cheney started outsourcing much of the military's non-combat functions when he was SecDef under Bush I. The problem here is that normal market conditions assume that no single buyer or seller is big enough or has so much clout that they can adversely shape the market. Cheney's maneuver suddenly made the US military the largest and most influential consumer on the planet. Add no-bid contracts to the equation and now there is no savings, there is no confidence in the bidding process, and productivity is compromised by lack of normal market incentives. I dislike mega-corporations in general for much the same reasons. They stifle market creativity and competition. So when a mega-corp like H gets a no-bid contract from the world's largest consumer, I don't think it's conjecture to say that this is NOT a good trend. This is more like market monopoly. The whole reason?! I doubt that with every fiber of my being. I think the Dopeler Effect had more to do with it. Wow. Nice assumption about the situation requiring no-bid contracts. And by nice I mean bad. If I liked either major party I could see the argument for partisanship, but I don't. I am one of those weirdo fiscal Republican / social Democrat types. I think the Bush I / Clinton / Bush II legacy will be that they all sold this country out to big business without competition, globalization through force instead of example, and privatization without sound reason. I'm tending to agree. WWII was unique in that we were coming out of the Great Depression so it was easy for the economy to begin booming. I did a double-take when I saw the word fallacy associated with the Broken Window theory. And being a big proponent of Broken Window, I'm quite frankly appalled. Broken Window has virtually NOTHING to do with economics except as an indirect result. Broken window is about stopping crime, not about who's buying what from whom.

*sigh* I'll post them as I find them: GSM Consulting would have been a great contractor for the oil well fires Haliburton made over 2.5 billion dollars on. From Bob Grace, president of GLM Consulting: Savings: $1,250,000,000

I suspect HumanBeast is working for AngryHarry. We'll see in subsequent threads, I guess.

I just thought of something. If the blades turn because of the wind, how is their turbulence stronger than the wind?

This is what I meant. And there are plenty of companies available to handle the military's specific needs, and at a far better price because of the bidding process. But because the contracts were written the way they were, no single company other than Haliburton could have fulfilled them. Imo, the fault lies there, requiring one company that could do it all. Usually when you give all your business to one company you get some pretty big savings. The administration seemed anxious to get us over there before anyone could really object that the no-bid contracts funneled all those funds only to to H and all their subsidiaries.

25. I actually thought of using one kid as a weapon on the others before that question came up. I swing a mean 5-year-old. I'm sure my age was a big factor. Of course, for the morality bit, I had to consider the kids as a lethal threat, much like a babysitter does.

That's what concerns me. There have been farms next to bases that don't have problems (most of them, from what I read). Now the industry is booming, generating more requests for licenses already this year than all of last year. Is the proliferation at fault? It could be, either because the sheer number is producing unprecedented effects or because [WARNING, POSSIBLE PC COMMENT] someone is losing too much energy revenue to these windy pioneers [still unsure why market pressure comments are considered "PC"] And how is the turbulence created different from the high winds these areas usually produce? Ask the Illinois militia. They've been trying to take back the terra haute for years.

The two party system insures this. And both parties are beginning to look identical because they're both trying to grab the votes near the center, where most voters are, but not necessarily where you find what most people want. Would there be more voters if people thought they could get better representation and more diverse solutions? I think so. Politics has become a lot like the national chain restaurant industry. With foodservice at that level, it is more important not to offend people than it is to please people. I sold to that industry for 12 years and there is a big difference between what a smaller independent company thinks is important and what the big guys think. In much the same way, the Dems and Reps are more interested in becoming neutral in the eyes of the voters. That way we can vote for the guy / gal we don't hate as much. I think the two party system is dividing this country more sharply than anything. It is used time and again to incorrectly point out that independents don't hold the majority view. This is the ultimate False Dilemma fallacy and we need to realize there are better choices for better representation.

That's weird. Does the Search function NOT look at titles?! You are a funny funny man.

There's medication that will keep your knee from jerking like that.

This answers my question. I wondered if it might be something that used to be true but no longer is. I still don't get why. Is everything that's too far right or left from center PC in your opinion? Again, I thought PC was being overly sensitive to one group or another. **** sensitive! I don't care how much profit Haliburton makes; the fact is those contracts were written so only one company could possibly fulfill them. And if you make enough in salaries, bonuses and incentives you don't need to show much profit. I still say the question is legitimate and NOT just PC chatter. Would the war have helped us avoid the recession and the flurry of pink slips if the money would have been spread around more?

From what I've read, certain metal blades can cause false radar readings. But there are plenty of turbines that don't use metal and plenty of plans to make them "stealthy" and quieter too. I don't know if buildings of a similar size create such interference anyway.

I think you're a drawoc and an elohssa. Personal opinion only.

I don't think moving either the bases or the farms is viable, although the farms would be the ones to go if push came to shove. Historically, as I said before, if a base thought some of the turbines were too tall and might affect either their electronic arrays or flight patterns, they called the owners and the masts were lowered. A fifty cent call for the taxpayer (plus the inevitable cost of the paperwork). I think it's more likely that the studies will never get done. The DOD report is just a recommendation; the FAA will probably lift the ban eventually without them, just as they are considering lifting the ban on cell phones on planes. But how many years it will take is the big question. If you say so. I respect your opinion on politics, you know that. I just always thought political correctness was about going overboard trying not to offend a particular group or groups. To me this is about unfair pressure on alternative energies that need all the help they can get to avoid being squashed by competition we'd all like to rely less on.

Let me ask this first (while I still have a job): wars are usually a pretty big boost to the economy. Has Iraq just gone on too long? The stock market declined pretty rapidly in 2000 (before either invasion) and started coming back after but never back to the where it was in the 90s (admittedly a high-water mark economically). Where was the economic surge war usually brings, or is that not the way modern economics works anymore, with no-bid contracts that keep the billions from being spread around more?

My point is that the studies are so extensive and expensive that it will be easy for the FAA to claim they don't have the budget if someone with political pressure really doesn't want those wind farms for whatever reasons. That's exactly what happened with the ban on tech gadgets on airplanes. Here is the DOD report on wind farms if you'd like to see it. The testing will be very scientific (if it ever gets done), but that's not my point. The tests will be site specific so every air base (AF & Navy) will need to be tested with a slightly different set of criteria. I can't even imagine how long this will take while the wind farm industry loses ground and revenue. Really, mine's a "politically-correct opinion?!? I have a completely different definition of politically-correct. I agree that the decision should be based on the facts. I want the decision to be based on facts. I don't want the decision to be blocked because the solution is out of proportion to the problem. And I really don't want a viable energy alternative to be lobbied into extinction by the status quo. That's not progress.

An encyclopedia is a compilation of facts. How does an encyclopedia differ from science? The lament of students everywhere. Most bad assumptions started with poor basic information. Knowing how to drive doesn't mean you know how to drive a race car, and knowing how to read doesn't mean you'll grasp all of biology. Unfortunately the bs is necessary. You just won't realize it for years yet.

Learning means never having to say you're sorry. Is this for Psychology or Biology class? Outer stimuli suggests sensory input. Inner stimuli suggests a physiological reaction. Does this make sense?