iNow

It's because they perform reminder calls the night before the appointment. They can't call you to remind you if you don't provide a phone number. It's that simple. Also, sometimes stylists go to other salons, but like to take their clients with them... They obviously need a phone number to inform them of the transfer. Nothing nefarious going on. DJBruce also raises a good point. It's good to be aware of identity theft issues and inappropriate surveillance... However, it's important for your focus to be on the right things and at the right places. I'm relatively confident that the hair salon and pizza parlors are not your biggest threats.

This seems like a decent resource: http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/Bio104/cellresp.htm Also, the wiki is probably a good place to start... Lots of good references, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermentation_%28food%29

Well, we know the universe has zero total energy... and, yet... we have such amazing stars and galaxies and (at least here on Earth) life. The idea is that something comes from nothing all the time. That in itself is rather interesting.

This would have probably been better as a PM. Thanks for further derailing my thread.

Thanks for the links, but if I were to distill your post into bullet-point form, all you really said is that the Austrian system is good because it uses logic. Unfortunately, I find that a rather unsatisfying response, as the same can be said of other economic models/theories as well. Additionally, logic alone is a rather poor guide, especially when the basic premises and assumptions on which the conclusions are built are questionable to the point of often being flawed. I wonder if you (or others) can further elucidate the pluses in a few short sentences. I've got some information about the minuses, but the gap in my awareness pertains to the pluses of this ideology. I want to hear from some folks about what is good about this system before I add some things to this discussion about what we know to be bad.

I thought it time to create a thread specifically for this conversation. It keeps hijacking nearly every thread which even vaguely references economics, so I'm hoping this thread will create a good way to keep our other discussions focused. So, let's talk about it. The Austrian School of Economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School ...is a school of economic thought that emphasizes the spontaneous organizing power of the price mechanism or price system. Austrians hold that the complexity of human behavior makes mathematical modeling of the evolving market extremely difficult (or undecidable) and advocate a laissez faire approach to the economy. Austrian School economists advocate the strict enforcement of voluntary contractual agreements between economic agents, and hold that commercial transactions should be subject to the smallest possible imposition of forces they consider to be coercive (in particular the smallest possible amount of government intervention). <...> Austrian School economists advocate strict adherence to methodological individualism, which they describe as analyzing human action from the perspective of individual agents.[9] Austrian School economists argue that the only means of arriving at a valid economic theory is to derive it logically from basic principles of human action, a method called praxeology. Additionally, whereas mainstream economists often utilize natural experiments, Austrian economists contend that testability in economics is virtually impossible since it relies on human actors who cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions. 'Mainstream' economists are generally critical of methodologies used by modern Austrian economics. So, what are the pluses and minuses of this ideology in terms of economics? Please, share your thoughts here. Let's help each other to find common ground and better understand the way others think about these issues.

Right... So did either of you watch the ****ing video or not? You know... the one explicitly referenced in the thread title? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That is a completely unfair misrepresentation, and I think you know it. I am ALWAYS open to differing ideas and opinions, but I also refuse to accept arguments grounded in premises which are non-representative and/or inaccurate. These arguments cannot be made in isolation, and we must consider all recommendations in context of the world as a whole. Idealized assumptions only work in idealized cases. We do not live in an idealized economy, and we cannot simply pretend that the world works in one very specific way when, in fact, it does not. That is all. Criticism of flawed premises is not a personal attack, nor can it be dismissed as "wanting people to agree with me." Can we please remain focused on the merits of the various positions and criticisms, and avoid turning this into YET another thread which gets closed? My hope is to focus specifically on the FRONTLINE special I shared. If you cannot do that, then please do not post. Comments such as these: ...have no place here. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Please see my comments above to ParanoiA. The same apply to you. That is far removed and separate from the topic this thread was opened to explore. Please do not hesitate to open your own thread to explore those interesting ideas, but please also do not discuss them here. They are off-topic (which I get to decide since I opened the thread). Neither. I am saying that all across the internet we are seeing the interjection of austrian ideals even when they do not apply to the subject under discussion. I am saying that they are like a cult, and are beginning to remind me of how creationists interject into evolution discussions, and remind me of how global warming denialists interject into all climate science discussions. I'm simply commenting on how wide-spread the phenomenon is becoming, and how it is not limited to threads on discussion forums such as SFN. I am saying that different ideas are good, but those ideas must be representative and based in reality. I am saying that there are far too many flawed assumptions in the austrian approach for it to be as ideologically entrenched as it has become. I am saying that people are letting their ideology and political preferences trump empiricism, and that this is becoming exasperating. Again, most of that is off-topic. The few parts which were on topic are directly rebutted by reality. We had the policy you advocate... we had it for decades... and it is precisely what led to the current crisis we're all experiencing. Your model of the world is flawed. Greenspan was man enough to admit it. Why aren't you?

Just to add to that... Few (if any) serious cosmologists really think the universe ever existed in a singularity state. The predominant (AFAIK) viewpoint is that the singularity is merely an artifact of our math... That our models are not yet honed enough to adequately describe the situation. The same thing applies to the center of blackholes. Most people working on the idea don't think that the center is really a singularity. It's just that the math we use which works so well in other reference frames tends to break down at these levels (early universe, center of BH, etc.)... not that those points are truly singularities. So, the math shows singularities, but most think that the math is limited and needs further work, not that the universe actually existed itself as a singularity.

How did you pay? Did you purchase your beer using cash, check, or credit/debit card? Also, how long did she spend entering information? Was it just a second or three, or was it more than 20-30 seconds? I ask, because at the stores here in TX they have to key in the DOB before they can complete the sale. It's possible this clerk was merely keying in the DOB, and that's why I asked how long it took her.

Thank Thor, too. You'd be surprised just how many people I work with who freak out when they see Excel. Really? You can't handle Excel? Okay... It's a good thing you can't touch the OS, and that we're not dealing with Linux.

Physman... I hate to sound like a broken record, but this is yet another flawed approach. This question is entirely meaningless. The BB did not have a "position on space." The BB was the expansion of space itself... Everywhere and everything was expanding... not merely some point within it as you seem to suggest. Your question assumes something akin to a drop of ink into a pitcher of water. There is no pitcher of water. All that exists is the ink itself. It's not expanding into anything, and it had no position. The concept of position is meaningless in this sense since there is nothing by which to compare it. The universe is EVERYTHING. There is no "outside" the universe, and there is no center (or, conversely, all points within the universe are its center... whichever you prefer, they are essentially equivalent).

Some of us here on the forums have become a bit exasperated with the way certain economic ideologies keep hijacking every thread... frustrated with how frequently the topic under discussion gets completely derailed by these Austrian pet theories. Too often lately someone will interject some assertion pertaining to free market ideals... about how we should not regulate... and how government should be completely hands off when it comes to economic policy, and also too often these people will continue interjecting the same assertions even after their premises have been shown to be flawed and non-representative. It actually reminds me a bit of a troll we used to have here named Farsight, who would ruin practically every thread in the Physics section with his insistence on infesting them with his own pet theories. Interestingly, this behavior is happening in several places it seems, and not just here at SFN. With that said, I find it incredibly fascinating how even those who previously were the "wizards" of our economic system are now beginning to realize the mistakes and holes in their previously held ideologies. For example, Alan Greenspan himself... who for years was strictly against regulation... who followed the ideals set forth by Ayn Rand... conceded that:

You may not be aware of this, but generally on a science forum we expect that the assumptions and premises be valid. His are not, ergo he is taken less seriously. It's akin to debating a creationist. They are so wrapped in their ideology that they forget that the claims they make must align with reality and also be accurate. You are. In support of his contentions... when challenged... he has never once cited a source other than mises.

The challenge was his arguments were not rooted in reality. His assumptions were non-representative. His premises flawed, and his conclusions suspect as a result. We've spent months and months being patient in our interactions with him and demonstrating why and where his arguments are unfounded and weak. When all he does is repeat assertions previously demonstrated to be invalid, fails to acknowledge the limitations of his approach, and then bashes others as unintelligent when they are merely skeptical of his claims and dare question his assumptions... Then, yeah... We respond in kind. You haven't been around much lately, ParanoiA. You need to take this thread in the larger context of the last year of interactions with us three, instead of rushing in and acting like some babysitter trying to slap me on the wrist because you saw one instance of something you didn't like after being totally absent for 98% of the other interactions which have taken place. My criticisms of his approach remains unanswered. It's that simple. If one's description of reality is invalid and non-representative/inaccurate, then one should not be using that description to form conclusions and argue policy.

I think your question is flawed, as it seems to assume that the universe has a center (I get this specifically from your mention of a radius). The universe is expanding in all directions, no matter from where you are looking. As you go out farther away from any spot (from any point whatsoever) the rate of expansion increases the further out you go. Also, the universe is flat, not spherical, so there's always that. I'm not sure if this helps or not. That's just what jumped out at me after reading your OP.

This is just a super cool talk, on many levels. I personally found it rather interesting, and wanted to share it having just watched it myself... The universe came from nothing. Got an hour? Don't waste it. Watch this. Watch here --> 7ImvlS8PLIo From the talk: The universe must be flat. <...> It turns out, that in a flat universe the total energy of the universe is precisely zero...Because gravity can have negative energy. So, the negative energy of gravity balances out the positive energy of matter. What’s so beautiful about a universe with total energy of zero? Well, ONLY such a universe can begin from nothing… And that is remarkable… Because, the laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing. You don’t need a deity. You have nothing… zero total energy… and quantum fluctuations can produce a universe. <…> Right now, we know it to an accuracy of better than 1%. The universe IS flat. It has zero total energy, and it could have begun from nothing. … And, I’ve written this piece (and, of course, I got a lot of hate mail) saying that in my mind this answers that crazy question that religious people always keep throwing out… Which is: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” The answer is… There had to be. If you have “nothing” in quantum mechanics, you’ll always get something. It’s that simple. It doesn’t convince any of those people, but it’s true. What are your thoughts? Discuss.

daniellos, Don't worry much about Severian. It's well worth reading his inputs in physics and quantum mechanics threads, as he's super bright and really gifted in those arenas. However, elsewhere, he's just another tool with his own silly beliefs and behaviors and quirks, and he can generally be ignored when needed. Full Disclosure: Same applies to me. I'm much stronger in certain areas than others, and should rightly be ignored in some. It doesn't really matter whether or not you are average on a faulty test, so it's best to just move on. IQ tests are mostly crap. Further, there's really not much which cannot be done with the right amount of effort, dedication, and mentorship. Find ways to study with people who are smarter than you. You can only benefit from their knowledge. That is, in fact, one of the primary reasons I like SFN so much. There are people here smarter than me, and it forces/helps me to become better. Good luck.

I've bolded the relevant bit of the OP to assist in my point, Dr.Syntax. Regardless, the thread is over a year and a half old, so I'm going to assume he's comfortable with the answers he has received since the thread went dormant. Take care.

Would that pumping of large amounts of glucose still occur if the freezing happened with a few seconds instead of over the course of several hours? I'm going to venture a guess and say, no... it wouldn't, so (while an incredibly interesting factoid) is not entirely related to the quoted question... which asked specifically about freezing by liquid nitrogen. Either way, I too am somewhat curious if freezing by liquid helium would result in the same type of cell damage from ice crystal growth (as asked by Shaykers).

Thanks for reinforcing my closing argument. It is much appreciated. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged So, has anybody besides me seen this?

Okay. I suppose that's fair. Let me say it this way. They are so systemically connected to other businesses... businesses which sit at the core and serve as the foundation of our entire economy... connected to these other businesses due explicitly to their ability to act in a free-er less regulated market... such as with derivatives... and connected in hidden ways and with vast amounts of money... that the failure of one of these companies would lead to an unacceptable cascade effect whereby the others would also fail like dominoes... resulting in a profound real world impact and directly leading to significant suffering of real people. I hope you can understand why I substituted the word "big" to simplify that point. This also summarizes why regulations are, in fact, a good thing (see Frontline special I posted in a previous post last night), and why the lack of regulation is so problematic. See above. Yet again... You make an invalid comparison, and you AGAIN act as if the economy can be treated using simplified and idealized representations (see my spherical cow reference above). The economy is NOT equivalent to measurements on frictionless slopes, which can be repeated easily by multiple researchers in multiple contexts. I suggest strongly that we take this conversation to the "Is economics a science" thread if you wish to continue, as my larger point is that there is too much variability in human nature and economic systems to be treated in the idealized way you propose, and hence it is NOT a science in this regard, and nor do the premises which you are using as the foundation of your argument have any stability or utility when engaging in these discussions. I'm not sure we're going to get any where in our conversations with one another on this subject abskebabs. I find your responses myopic, and rather frustrating. You are arguing on premises that are unconnected with reality, and then attacking others when they point out where your assumptions are flawed. Obviously, this is indicative of the fact that your arguments cannot stand on their own merits.

Relevance?

I seem to recall something about mint. If the flavor is peppermint, people do better. Something about the way it stimulates the brain.

Not too "crucial" to fail, but too "big." They are big precisely due to the lack of regulation. Finally, we're not a pure free market, nor will we ever be. You continue to argue using a constantly shaped and sized spherical cow in an attempt to describe the set of all mammals, which are themselves constantly evolving. In other words, your idealized case is too far removed from reality to be useful.

What in the name of Zeus does this have to do with Politics?