Phi for All

15 billion really wise people or <1 billion short-sighted ones. Since it's likely there will always be a mix, at 6.5Bn I'd say we could use more wisdom and less short-sightedness. It isn't an easy fix but this would be a good start.

On a plane flight recently a guy in the seat directly ahead of me seemed to be having trouble with his reading light. He reached overhead and turned it on, then a minute later reached up and turned it off, and repeated this a few times. I could see the top of his head and he wasn't looking down like he was reading, he was looking around for a flight attendant, getting angrier when they didn't respond. He's jumping to conclusions and losing his cool because he's being stupid and unobservant. This tickles me and I decide I'm not going to tell him he's got the wrong button. A few minutes later he stops a flight attendant and he's obviously angry. He goes on and on about how he just wanted a blanket and has been signaling for for the last ten minutes and why don't they fix their buttons? The attendant reaches up and pushes the proper call button (big, orange, picture of an attendant on it instead of a light bulb) and one of the other attendants starts to come back till the first one waves her off. I hear the guy say, "Oh" as he realizes his mistake. I figured he'd apologize but he instead chooses profound stupidity by continuing to be angry and demanding a blanket and a pillow NOW. The attendant puts up with it but gets in one last subtle shot. Once he's settled with pillow and blanket she asks, "If you're going to sleep shall I turn the reading light off?" He saved himself from total profound stupidity at this point by finally saying thank you.

I started a new sales job working for one of those "everything-under-one-roof" department stores. After my first day the manager asks me how many customers I waited on and I told him one. He tells me most of the salespeople wait on 20-30 people a day. Then he asked me how much I sold to this one customer and I told him $121,447.65. He asked me what I sold the guy and I told him at first it was a small fishhook, then a larger fishhook, then a new rod & reel. The customer mentioned he knew a place off the coast so I told him he should get a boat. After Sporting Goods set him up with a Boston Whaler we realized his Honda Civic wouldn't pull the boat so I took him to Automotive and sold him a 4x4 Expedition. My boss says, "A guy comes in to buy a fishhook and you sell him a boat and an SUV?!" and I tell him no, the guy came in to buy tampons for his wife and I said to him, "Dude, your weekend's shot, you should go fishing!"

Oooooh, what a cute girl!! And you have a cute daughter too! And there's a turtle to support the veracity of the claim. You can't lie with a turtle around. I think it's a female turtle too.

Oh right, both you and thatbiologyg have little ones around. Mine's 8.5 so I sometimes forget about those days. Oh, that's just great, more female members flooding my PM box with scandalous photos. *sigh* All right, if it will help out I guess I can put up with it. Video format is OK too, I guess, if you *have* to.

"... and may I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism in the British Navy. Absolutely none' date=' and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit...." -Monty Python Then answer this question: If you've just used a pair of scissors and you're going to use them again sometime soon, isn't it more efficient to leave them laying out where they're easy to grab rather than put them back in the drawer?

*You* can call him by first name but you're talking about a public function. Absolutely ask him beforehand if he would prefer that you refer to him as "doctor" for this event. He'll appreciate that you want to get it right.

The lady doth protest too much methinks. Tell them what the "C" stands for, Clara Darwin!

Excellent idea. And it verifies my hypothesis that *all* the women members are extremely bright, whereas you can't say that about all the guys here... [/schmoozing]

The handle off of which the OP flies so dramatically seems to have been precipitated by those distracting bullets in the definition. They do tend to draw the eye and make us skip the explanatory bits. Let's back off a bit, I smell a mea culpa in the offing. Let's not make it more difficult.

Warning given. If this is directed at the other posters you are trolling. If it's directed at Wikipedia you are drawing fallacious conclusions. A different approach is suggested, one which protects your face from getting egg all over it.

I've heard many RC plane enthusiasts say how much more difficult an RC helicopter is to fly. I know it seems like it would be easier but apparently that's not the case. Making one from scratch could only make it worse, imo. And without the equipment to perform the proper workshop customizing you will most certainly need, I think you will most likely end up with an RC fan. If your summer has been as hot as mine has, that might not be a bad thing.

And I'm sure insane_alien is just bursting with pride about that *now*.

Maybe his little brother, ih8sppeling, posted on his account.

Now we know why guy geeks outnumber girl geeks. Cluelessism.

We have lots of women here, but iNow is right, many may not want to vote, even though the poll is not a public one. The ratio is weighted pretty heavily towards the guys though. She just wants to be judged on her merits, not what gender she is. Who says a person can't be a tremendous intellect *and* a swimsuit model? And before it starts, you should know that sending Sayonara3 a PM describing yourself is not going to get you anywhere. Attach a photo, at least.

HHO debunked by a ChemEng.

Unfortunately that thread suddenly became the outpouring of tons of suppressed postings, like a burst dam of religion arguments. But you've hit the nail on the head with this last sentence, Snail, you *can't* apply logic to religion, just as believers *can't* try to use the failures of science to support their conclusions. Neither will work and I'd really like a chance to see if we can have some good discussions, even arguments, without all the bickering that goes nowhere.

Manufacture and storage of the gas, if indeed HHO even exists (no peer review done to date iirc), would make it practically impossible to "save" anything, much like current biofuel work with corn. If it saved you gasoline it would cost as much or more in other energy areas.

You mean like Politics, Biomedical Ethics and General Discussion? I suppose so. We've had a lot of people that started out posting in these "Other Topics" until they felt stronger in the sciences and they are great members now. Shutting everyone out of GD until they have 50 sciencey posts may pose a problem.

People don't always respond in the negative when asked a question like this because they feel it's unhelpful. Assume the response so far from the 157 views you've gotten is, "No, I haven't bought a microscope from Amscope and I don't know how reliable they are or if it is worth buying." It doesn't hurt to keep bumping this thread so more people see it.

Actually, when we separated it from SFN, it attracted those we never really wanted to attract, namely those who *only* wanted to talk about theology, and mostly those who had very strong stances pro or con. No matter how much we stressed that we wanted to use SFN methodology at Theology Forums we lost that indefinable "SFN mental shielding" the moment we went offsite. We tried to split and it didn't work. We've tried to have it here with a "nothing's too sacred to talk about, let's remember free speech" attitude and it bogged down with circular logic and vehement ad hominems. I like learning from past mistakes and I don't quit just because I got a little dirty, but I think it's insane to keep doing things the same way hoping for different results. This time it'll be different or it won;t be at all.

I've set myself up to where I'm almost always doing exactly what I want to do. I work for a medium sized company from a remote home office, my wife works part-time and my daughter is usually in school (summer day camps currently) so I'm alone during the day. When business and house duties are in a lull, reading is my preferred pastime, whether it's a good piece of fiction, a scan of a Scientific American article or logging on to read the brilliance here on SFN. If I can find a nearby stream to sit by I can really get in tune with a good author. Next would come playing Neverwinter Nights online with a combination of old friends and new acquaintances. I'm an old pnp D&D player so the new computer game system lets me play without all the time-consuming prep work. There are so many brilliant young people with more time than I have working on the NWN servers. Finally, I love watching movies, and my wife isn't always into everything I pick out from the library (Starship Troopers comes to mind). These movies I save for late at night or when wife and daughter are off bonding. *My* remote!

The purpose of a new P&R subforum is not to attract new members interested only in those topics. We'll have a 50 post minimum before your'e even eligible to post there. Its purpose is not to expand our coverage of interests. Its purpose is not to drag out all your biblical error bits or your "proof" that the Flood actually happened. Its purpose is to provide a place for discussions many of us seem to gravitate to anyway, a place where science is not thrown out the door and it's not used to try to measure something for which it's unsuitable. Its a place where, because you happen to be an SFN member, you can discuss these subjects using the same methodology we use in the rest of the forums, with the understanding that science and religion don't cancel each other out unless they're used against one another. Seriously, if you've done a lot of research into religion and think you're going to be able to change people's mind one way or the other about it, you should go to a more formal religion site whose aim is primarily religion. The SFN P&R forum will just not be your cup of tea. Many on Staff feel that a science-only approach to SFN isn't well-balanced. We hate to see gag-orders on such major topics as Philosophy & Religion but we also know they are more sensitive than the sciencey ones because there is no supporting evidence for powers we can't measure. If you feel you could discuss the possibilities fairly and without resorting to the same old "approach the brick wall" strategies, I think we can have some lively, civil discussions. If you can't, and if a vast majority can't, then we pull the final plug on our efforts and those who never wanted it to succeed can say, "I told you so".

How do we know it's wrong? Creationism propagates the lie that evolution denies the possibility of a creator Creationism tries to refute natural scientific observation with supernatural means, confusing the observable with the unobservable Creationism asks to be taught alongside regular science courses, introducing supernatural methods into an otherwise natural process But evolution has nothing to say about a creator or creation. Creationists aren't claiming that God used evolution, they are claiming he made everything in six 24-hour days and then just made it seem like evolution was responsible. We CAN prove that the earth is not 6000 years old as some creationists claim, we CAN prove that the evolutionary process changes organisms over long periods of time. You can either use the scientific method to describe the natural universe or you can ascribe a higher, supernatural hand behind those processes, but you can't attempt to mix them so that one refutes the other.