MigL

That seems to be a misconception of what you consider a 'cure' ( lobotomies ? really ? ) I know one really nice homeless guy, Frank M., who hangs around the area. He lost his way when his sister committed suicide, is paranoid, and hears voices. His dad worked with mine, and he has a fantastic memory, recalling events from when we were both young in the 70s. I have often given him money, and when his Government check comes in, he always insists on repaying it. He could live at home with his mother and live a fairly 'normal' life ( he has at times ), but he chooses to live on the streets and not take his 'cure'. His cure consists of medication, not a lobotomy. Often times the 'cure' may only consist of counselling.

I don't know how cold it gets in Iowa during the winter INow, but in the Great Lakes region, I have seen it get to -25o C at night, close to -40o with the wind chill. If you ever walk by a mentally ill homeless person, who will not go to the homeless shelter down the street, but would rather sleep on the sewer grate in those temperatures, because he's afraid they will steal the dolls he has in his bags,at the shelter, and you decide that it's a good idea to leave him to do as he wants, and you can feel good about your actions, you are a better man than I am. True story, incidentally. Never did convince him to go to the shelter, but took him to Tim Horton's and we had hot coffees for an hour or two. Still feel bad about it to this day ( almost 20 years later )

Exactly why this is not a simple question, and needs both sides to be considered at length. The 'typicals' should not have the right to force 'atypicals' into doing things they don't want, and I certainly understand your viewpoint, INow. But what if the 'atypicals' cannot make an informed decision ( and who decides if they can, or not ), or if the decisions they make are detrimental to their well being, or even dangerous to their, or other's lives ? Is it more compassionate to take away their rights, and force them to do things for their own safety, or more compassionate to let them be who they are, and do what they choose, and watch as they hurt themselves, or possibly die? This is similar to the ongoing assisted suicide thread, "Is Suicide Right or Wrong ?", in Ethics. You could make the argument that a person who's in great pain ( akin to being tortured continuously ), cannot make the informed decision to end their own life. Should we let them ?

Well, the previous President does have an excuse. He's been busy trying to overturn an election, and plotting insurrections, since Nov 3, and hasn't really had any time to do his actual job.

Bill Maher is especially funny at about the 8th minute. Talking about QAnon, he asks " If K Harris really is a lizard person, why didn't she eat the fly on M Pence's head, during the debate ?"

Society is often able to forcibly do all sorts of things to people through Government legislation; and I'm sure you agree with lot of them. They are able to confine you to a cell or house, if you are imprisoned or quarantined. They are able to tie you up, whenever you drive your vehicle, with a seat/shoulder belt. And many more. We don't protest these laws because we realize it is for our own good. Why are we so squeamish about forcing a mentally sick person off the street, and into a shelter, so he doesn't freeze to death, simply because his sick mind is telling him he doesn't want to go there ? Should we let him die in the cold ? ( this is not specifically about psychopaths anymore, but all mental conditions, or, the 'spectrum' in fashionable speak )

There are two ways to look at it... 1 - It is a deviation from the normal, and, being unpredictable, could result in danger to themselves, or others. 2 - It is part of a 'spectrum', and until there is demonstrated danger to themselves, or others, they should be left to live as they see fit. The first way, results in people trying to 'cure' homosexuality, as it is also a deviation from the norm. The second results in mentally challenged, homeless people being left on the streets to freeze in -20o temps, because they refuse to go to homeless shelters. I don't know which of th two is more cruel, but I do know that this is not a simple question with a yes/no answer.

The strong equivalence principle suggests gravity is geometric in nature, only the metric determines its effects, and does not have any extra external fields associated with it. The strong equivalence principle can be tested by several methods. Variations in the mass of fundamental particles, or the variation of G over the life of the universe, have determined that the upper range in the variation of G cannot be more than 10%. It can also be tested by looking for extra forces, deviations from the forces predicted by GR, or the inverse square law. This is, in effect, what this study has done. It looked for the effects from the large scale gravitational field from an all-sky galaxy catalog, and concluded that there was statistically significant evidence of violation of the strong equivalence principle in weak gravitational fields in the vicinity of rotationally supported galaxies. They observed an external field ( Machian ) effect of the MOND type, a theory of gravity inconsistent with tidal effects and the Lambda-CDM model. Their paper Testing the Strong Equivalence Principle: Detection of the External Field Effect in Rotationally Supported Galaxies - IOPscience and a quote from the abstract "The strong equivalence principle (SEP) distinguishes general relativity (GR) from other viable theories of gravity. The SEP demands that the internal dynamics of a self-gravitating system under freefall in an external gravitational field should not depend on the external field strength. We test the SEP by investigating the external field effect (EFE) in Milgromian dynamics (MOND), proposed as an alternative to dark matter in interpreting galactic kinematics. We report a detection of this EFE using galaxies from the Spitzer Photometry and Accurate Rotation Curves (SPARC) sample together with estimates of the large-scale external gravitational field from an all-sky galaxy catalog."

D Cheney has had a political career spanning over 40 years, like J Biden. He was everyone's favorite whipping boy during the G W Bush Presidency, for having too much power as VP, and pulling the strings of his 'marionette' President. Then along comes D Trump, his VP M Pence, and a good portion of the Republican party, to make G W Bush and D Chaney look like eloquent and stable statesmen in comparison. Who'd have thunk it ...

I thought it was just me. The air does smell fresher today, doesn't it ?

One day we'll have competent Governments ...

For that reason, and many others. I have to agree that it isn't a valid comparison.

Seems Poland is not alone. The left wing Mexican Government is looking at a similar proposal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/01/16/mexico-poland-social-media-trump/

IIRC the plantation owners ( and those in favor of the situation ) tried very hard to leave the Union, and keep their way of life. Modern businesses, on the other hand, operate in a global economy, and have no problem leaving, and taking their business and factories overseas. Haven't you noticed ? All you've done is given an example ( equating slaves with employees ) of a very low threshold min wage increase that killed jobs 150 years ago.

It is a moral issue, that recognizes the realities of fiscal and economic situations.

And JC is trying to explain that, a hypothetical min wage of $15/hr is of no use in raising your family, if you don't have a job. Hence he's pushing a BUI.

Typical power output of a cell phone is 0.6W ( old analog phones did 3W ); probably less than what 'leaks' from your microwave, so probably due to conduction heating, not radiative. Either way, you're on your phone too long

"The more things change, … "

What happens at the far left of that graph, when the inlet water temperature drops to 00 C ? You would have a nasty discontinuity ?

That might well be the case, and I would agree with you, but it's a topic for a different thread.

I would guess that any hard right ( or hard left ) Government that has aspirations of dictatorship ( Poland maybe ? ) would be trying to force established social media out, so that a Government run/controlled media can more easily disseminate Government propaganda. Makes it much easier to control the people.

I think JC is suggesting that the threshold is different for different States. While $15/hr might not be a job killer in States like Washington or California, it definitely might be in the States which have State min wages set below the Federally mandated minimum of $7.25/hr. He even posted a nice overview of State min wages. to emphasize the point. ( thanks BTW )

Not necessarily, INow. Where are the checks and balances, for FOX News ? Or, for providers that host QAnon sites and Forums ? Or sites that advocate insurrections and the overturning of valid elections ?

Hey, I wanna join in the fun … ( and drag INow in also ) Makes you wonder how they can project an inflation rate which will decrease the value of $15, by 15%, to $13 dollars, unless they think the min wage increase will increase inflation. And that was the point I was making. You raise minimum wage, which has the effect of increasing prices and inflation, so that in the end, the raise is almost all eaten away by inflation. And you're hardly better off than you previously were. Even though your income has been raised above that arbitrary number that the Government chooses to call the 'poverty line'.

I wasn't aware of this, but apparently the number of inmates scheduled for the death penalty has decreased by 13 ( almost a quarter ) since D Trump assumed power, after a 17 year hiatus. No other president in over 10 years has allowed the execution of so many inmates. D Higgs was executed by lethal injection in Indiana, for ordering the killing of three women. Higgs, a black man, was sentenced to death, even though he didn't actually kill the women; the other man, who did the killing, got a life sentence. Trump administration carries out 13th and final execution (msn.com) Seems this president is even more blood-thirsty than we thought