Phi for All

You wish you had more homophobic, racist commanders who don't want their constituency to question what's happening in a modern world? I know a lot of people here want that, and you're right about his chances of winning, I just didn't realize people in Europe want that. Good to know.

Please make your case without all the wind up. You're trying to persuade us, NOT sell us something. Start with stating what you think are problems. It could be they aren't at all. So far, this sounds like you hit a snag in geometry somewhere, and instead of learning it the way everyone else learned it, you decided it was a mistake made by the ancients that nobody has recognized... until YOU came along. Evidence is what you need to persuade us, not teasing about some remarkable solution to a problem we may not agree is a problem.

! Moderator Note Thread locked, see new thread here.

Ilya Geller has been banned. We give people with non-mainstream ideas a whole thread to support their concepts, explain their idea using as much evidence as possible. When they can't, the thread gets locked and they aren't allowed to bring it up in other threads. Hijacking mainstream threads with unsupported science is against the rules, especially when you keep doing it after being warned.

He used to say stuff like that all the time! Me: "For every dollar's worth of product I sell, I make a dime and you make ninety cents." Him: "You think I get to keep all that?! I have expenses I have to meet." Me: "It's no different for me. I don't get to keep the whole dime." Him: "My expenses are far greater." Me: "Yes, probably about nine to ten times greater, the same as your compensation." And like mistermack, nothing could persuade the man that his perspective was faulty and skewed in the extreme towards himself as the business owner. There's always something a resource owner will prioritize over employees who turn those resources into profit, and traditionally that's one reason we need strong unions.

As others have pointed out, this isn't just your take on the issue, or a perspective you've adopted; it's flat out wrong. I've known employers who think like you, who resent paid vacations and sick leave because they've fooled themselves into thinking the employee is taking advantage of them. Self-important cry babies with resources who resent the folks who work for them, boo-hoo all the way to the bank. The worst person I ever worked for thought this way. I worked straight commission so he couldn't gripe about the time I took off for vacation, but he used to calculate how much I earned per hour, and pretend that's how he paid me. He did everything he could to make it clear he was graciously allowing me to sell a million dollars worth of the product he manufactured. The company made NOTHING if I didn't sell it, yet this guy had convinced himself that he was paying me if I took more than an hour for lunch.

I don't agree. We have this problem with our newscasters sometimes, where it's just a pretty face that doesn't understand the events they "report" on. But politicians on the national level tend to have a style they stick to for written speeches (usually stumping for their favorite messages), and also a style for going "off the cuff". You can't claim they're only "speakers" when they're so effective at it. Biden can be very good at reading from a script because you understand that he understands what he's talking about. But that never hampered TFG. You could always tell when he was reading from the teleprompter, and when he decided to go off-script. I can hardly stand to listen to him when he's not reading prepared material, but he's extremely effective as a simple speaker. If you read Shakespeare aloud, sometimes that makes you an actor.

I hope the MAGA crowd was listening when Biden made the comment about his hecklers being entitled to their outrageousness in a democracy as long as they avoided violence. I really hope they noted that, at a MAGA rally, protesters are threatened by violence from TFG himself. But I've all but given up hope that the MAGA crowd understands the importance of democracy in their lives since it's been so distorted by the entertainment sources they turn to for "news". I hold a LOT more hope that many Republicans see a greater divide between MAGA goals and what they've always believed in, a United States of America that takes personal responsibility for its actions and keeps the government from over-regulating our personal lives. Non-MAGA Republicans are normally very disapproving of political violence, which made it easy to stir them up against the BLM protests and events where FOX News could claim the left had organized into ANTIFA. Those folks can be persuaded to see reason, I think, and pointing out how violent TFG is in his rhetoric works to turn them away from him.

You're using the Bohr model? Photons are elements in your concept?

Not by me. That requires phenomenal cosmic powers.

! Moderator Note Please don't. If you have assertions to make, make them clearly. If you're going to promise meaning and then withhold it, the thread will be closed. This is a science discussion forum, not a marketing platform for your teasers. ! Moderator Note Please stick to one topic per thread. And Studiot is correct, our language for the site is English, so please make sure the evidence you use to support your ideas reflects that. .

Undoing the bonds created in Nixon's Southern Strategy by drawing a clear line between Reagan Republicans and MAGA is a bold move, and a smart one imo. It's a compromise that works for Biden, who still wants to reach across the aisle, and shows that he finally gets that MAGA folks have never really been interested in democracy, so no amount of aisle reaching is going to overcome the racism and hatred and resentment. It's just going to take everybody else to stand up and tell them this isn't acceptable, never was, never will be, and maybe take the opportunity to fix some things to better benefit 99% of us.

And consider the resolution in that snap. Smartphone cameras are simply amazing these days. People have to actually be careful what they take a picture of, since it just takes two fingers to zoom in and read license plates and documents sticking out of people's pockets. It's now a trope in movies and TV that phone photos have identifiable antagonists lurking in the background, yet the modern photos of BF remain grainy and shaky.

In cases like this, as iNow mentioned, personal information is removed when it's posted or reported, replaced with a moderator edit ("Please call me at personal information removed "), but we don't scrub the whole post. Most people posting data like that are spammers posting links as well, and when spambanned, those posts DO get deleted by the software. Your parts of discussions can't easily be yanked from the whole. It may seem fair to an individual to have such rights, but discussion is a joint effort. If we build a tower together, is it fair to the other builders that you can remove the parts you worked on when you change your mind?

I'd actually never heard this before, but it seems more like evidence of human behavior. While primates are the best at using inorganic, solid projectiles, only humans are good enough at throwing things to be accurate at distances beyond a few meters. In the stories you believe, do people get hit by what Bigfoot throws? How far was the throw?

Your part in a multi-part conversation is NOT "personal information". "Withdraw consent" refers to data normally protected by financial security measures, which we don't have. The system uses email notifications, so the most personal information we have on members is their email address. As for deleting member posts, please understand that we would NEVER treat your posts that way. We assume you put a great deal of effort and thought into them, just like other members do, and we understand that deleting anybody's work is a slap in the face to everyone who was part of that conversation.

First, not "every single report in the past 200+ years" mentions "throwing things at people", so you don't get to conflate the two. Second, your argument begs the question that it was a Bigfoot (really?) throwing things at people, so you don't get to assume that. It's just the kind of behavior that has mundane, mainstream explanations for it, which shows you don't understand Occam's Razor. Third, skeptics don't sit on the fence. If they don't find evidence quickly, they assume the mainstream explanation is adequate, and get off the fence until there's something new to question. What you're engaging in here is conspiracy. There's no firm evidence, but you assume it's true and try to reverse engineer the whole process. You're convinced of something extraordinary when ordinary will suffice.

We sympathize with your wife. You've set up a convention in your argument process where you only have to know 60% of what you're talking about, but get to claim others are deficient because they can't fill in the gaps in your ignorance. Heads you win, tails they lose.

It appears the expired passports the FBI seized along with the contents of a desk drawer directly tie TFG to the illegally stored classified documents also found there: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trumps-seized-passports-problem-legal-experts-say-rcna45726 Makes it difficult to claim that others mishandled the docs when they're mixed in with obvious personal items. Not sure why they returned them if they're evidence, but the article claims the FBI got what they needed from them.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations, since this sounds like non-mainstream ideas. Please do your best to support your assertions, using mainstream science, to bring them above the level of hand-waving. Be specific, and if you have "a remarkable solution", do everyone a favor and START WITH THAT. We're looking to see if your idea has merit, and we'd love to discuss it if it does, but we want some evidence that your concept reflects what we observe in nature.

I think you do, because it's been explained fairly well, and you're smart. Paintings rarely need other paintings to give them context and meaning, so no. In our case, individual pieces (posts, messages) are combined into a topic discussion (thread). Ideally, this creates something more than it's parts, so we can view a meaningful conversation as an emergent property of online forum discussion. It's not about the individual contributions, but without them there's no chance of discovering new meaning by talking with reasonable people. We need the discussion to be intact if we're to learn from it. Does that make sense? Fair? I think you're looking at this as if someone put something they owned down somewhere, and when they changed their mind and went to pick it up again, someone else tells them they aren't allowed to pick it up again and have to just leave it there. But that's not what's happening here. Putting down your thoughts is expected of everyone here, it's a science discussion forum.

Yes, it's exactly like that. Except Google employees are paid, unlike our staff. And nobody has had any personal information or photos exposed, also no video was involved. Oh, and most of the information in the posts was self-published and is available elsewhere for free, so removing it from our threads doesn't do anything. But yeah, other than those things, it's like what you said Google says.

Your hot water is hopefully set for at least 120 F (bacteria issues), which you're probably mixing with a little cold water to bring the bath to around 100 F. You spend some time adjusting to that so when you get out, 85 F feels quite cool. Also, before you dry off, water droplets are evaporating, drawing energy as they change from liquid to gas, which causes the cooling on the surface of your skin.

You're right, it was Barkley, not Shaq. Didn't Barkley also have a weird take on science, like he didn't think analyzing the metrics in basketball was necessary? My new Thesaurus is terrible. Plus, it's also terrible.

I stopped watching basketball because of Shaq and his stance that he didn't want to be a role model to children. I'm grateful for the extra time this gave me to study science, and I'd be equally grateful to know that children no longer look up to him. And I'd tell him that to the top of his chest, being 6' 3". But it makes sense that Shaq is a flat-Earther. Most of those folks are droolers, so a dribbler will fit right in.