iNow

Survey says "Delicate sensibilities resulting from religious indoctrination, social isolation, and repressed natural urges."

It happens. After all, we each had to learn the acronym at some time, and we all didn't know what it meant at any time in our lives prior to that moment.

Yeah... like I said... anything other than semantics to offer? Haven't you been banned for this behavior like nine times already? Let's just make it permanent and move on, shall we?

This forum has functionality such that when you post two consecutive posts within a given period of time, so long as no other member has posted after your first post, the two will automatically merge into one post with a line separating them. It's nothing you did, so no worries. After reading your paragraph above, I had this thought. The logical next question everyone here is going to ask you in response your speculations is, "So what?" What does your speculation add to our present understanding? How can we use it? In what ways is it better than the knowledge we already have, what gap does it fill, or what existing idea does it displace? How you are treated and perceived in this community will depend greatly on how you respond to the question, "So what?"

There is something like that in the universe. It's your imagination.

Actually, that's why we have a descendable scrotum. The balls are the factories, and have little to do with thermal regulation.

This is just mindless... The new republican approach is, "Do whatever we can to blame this on Obama in 2010 even if it means completely destroying our country and economy." 6JsOe4JyJ80

General Relativity = GR

Where and how, precisely, is anyone making or forcing anyone to do anything? In addition, if you could please respond to my previous request for clarification, that would be helpful.

Oh... Well, in that case, you will be mocked mercilessly. Seriously, we're going to point and laugh, it's as simple as that. First, we don't have a philosophy forum, and that was my larger point. This is a science forum, with many interests, but specific rules. After that, just jump in, and try to recognize up front that there are many members here who do this stuff for a living, and have spent decades of their lives studying the topics about which you want to speculate. In other words, if you're wrong, you'll be corrected. If you're curious, you'll be helped. If you're open to new information and correction of your assertions, you'll be accepted. Cheers.

Actually, no. You have simply asserted this and expected us to accept it as true. Perhaps once you've supported this position using something other than semantics your point will be worthy of further consideration. Until that occurs, it is not.

Would you please be so kind as to explain precisely how it is you think I did that? If at all possible, can you please do so in context of the discussion regarding the California State Supreme Courts pending decision about Prop 8?

No, not me. It sounds like you're more interested in philosophy than in science. For example, you can speculate about how many angels will fit on the head of a pin, but here at SFN (even in the Pseudoscience and Speculations forum) you need to take the time to specify the parameters of the pin, the characteristics of the angels, and how we might go about testing it. How about you give it a shot, and just go ahead and post your idea? There's no harm in that, and you'll get feedback from members here. Whether good or bad, everyone will then have the opportunity to learn from the exchange. If, however, you have zero interest in actually supporting what you say with existing science and experiment, you might try to post at a philosophy board instead. Regardless of your response, welcome.

It's not as much of a problem if you happen to agree with the new direction.

Yeah, precisely. I think you should probably try listening to yourself on this one. Why not simply give them their rights without worrying about what it's called? Equality. Constitutionality. Alignment of human rights regardless of sexuality. I find those reasons extraordinarily good ones, myself. I implore you to review almost every post I made to this thread. I discussed the relevant bits of our constitution, its amendments and articles, as well as our other founding documents. I shared numerous SCOTUS cases which set precendent, and also amply demonstrated how our representative democracy was explicitly crafted to offer protection to minorities. Yet, you still think that those against Prop 8 need to "make their case?" Have you not been paying attention? Do you live in an alternate reality? What's happening here? If you're ignoring the arguments, or just simply don't accept them, then that's one thing, but to claim that none have been made is incredibly disingenous and seriously lacking in integrity. I presume that this position you're arguing rests on your assumption that they didn't previously have the right to have a marriage recognized by the state, correct?

via: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/stem_cells_on_the_radio.php Here's Glenn Beck, always the representative of Idiot America. "So here you have Barack Obama going in and spending the money on embryonic stem cell research, and then some, fundamentally changing - remember, those great progressive doctors are the ones who brought us Eugenics. It was the progressive movement and it was science. Let's put science truly in her place. If evolution is right, why don't we just help out evolution? That was the idea. And sane people agreed with it! And it was from America. Progressive movement in America. Eugenics. In case you don't know what Eugenics led us to: the Final Solution. A master race! A perfect person. That came from people in white coats. That came from the best and brightest because they were unhinged from any kind of ethics. They were unhin… they believed in evolution. It came from the scientific consensus. We're headed back down there again. The stuff that we are facing is absolutely frightening. So I guess I have to put my name on yes, I hope Barack Obama fails. But I just want his policies to fail; I want America to wake up." Man, he sounds like Ben Stein. Science is evil, science is indistinguishable from Nazis, evolution is the same thing as amorality. What a maroon. If anyone is unhinged, it's Beck.

The President’s Executive Order on Ethics and how it is being implemented: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/10/Ethics-Update/ One of President Obama’s first official acts upon taking office was to sign the ethics Executive Order. The Order establishes some of the toughest ethics rules ever imposed on executive branch appointees. It has been widely praised by commentators and leading good government advocates for the hard line it takes on lobbyists and others riding the revolving door between government service and the private sector in order to achieve personal gain at the expense of the public interest. <more at link>

Well, to be fair, all three of you are correct. I personally quite agree with waitforufo's implication that the market is essentially a craps shoot. They gamble on what they think might make money in the future. He raises an interesting point that the reaction of a downward market raises the possibility that they were not happy with the plans put forward by the Obama administration. However, waitforufo also could have used the word "tend to" when referring to the markets to be more clear in his post if you want to be pedantic. Bascule is also correct, in that much of the stimulus pertains to liquidity and the freeing up of currently frozen credit. He implicitly is demonstrating that without credit, more businesses falter in a systemic way, and more people get laid off, consequently the market continues it's downward self-reinforcing trend. Finally, Mokele is ALSO right in that the market is often a biased and limited response from a relatively small handful of very powerful people, each with their own particular wants and interests. Further, he's spot on that many of the key "movers and shakers" have failed repeatedly at prognostication in the very recent past. However, let me speculate a bit myself... There is another possibilty why the market went down after the policy announcements of the Obama administration, and it could have nothing to do with "what they think of it's potential impact." What if they see that all of the places which formerly were strong money makers (aka oil and coal, and the countless other sectors that are shifting right now) changing... They see the stimulus ultimately directing funds into new niches, and it takes some time to sell holdings in the previous money makers (which will be increasingly marginalized under Obama) and buy new holdings in the new sectors.... Basically, the market could have gone down simply because people were pulling money from these areas that are being pushed aside, even though those areas were huge earners in the past. Just a thought... The downward trend in the market could very simply be it resetting itself to adjust to the new path we're taking. Indeed. I happen to agree very much with the sentiment here, but I tend to check how intense I'll let myself get about this. The market overall really is a good indicator, because it serves as a representation of the aggregate of market activity. While there are clearly a few heavy hitters out there who have huge influence, the market overall is still a very natural selector. Anyway, just to wrap up this post, in addition to my comments a few posts ago about the market wanting more details and context from the admistration, as I said earlier in the thread, I really think that part of it is that they fear the government simply doesn't have the balls to do enough. That's another source of concern to bear in mind, and it applies to the global response, not just what we do here in the US.

Part of the issue is that statements from the White House have lacked certainty. They have relied on very fuzzy and vague statements such as, "We will use all of the powers of the Federal governement to blah blah blah." What the market wants to hear are specifics, detailed plans that can be measured and used as parameters (as sets of rules which will be held constant) for their own operations and investment decisions. Something like, "To combat problem X, we will begin exercising option A on date N. This will have the effect of Y, at which time we will then move into Phase 2 of the plan and exercise option B in sectors F, G, and H. This will have the effect of Z, which will couple well with our implentation of T on Date S." While I agree completely with the others here that this has been happening for a long time, and it's myopic to place the issues of the current market entirely at the feet of Obama after him only being in office for roughly 7 weeks, he has contributed to small pieces of the problem. He has contributed to the problems due to of his lack of detail, and his administration not providing enough context for each of their actions and plans. This results in uncertainty, and investors will continue to pull back their funds as a result. Does that address your question? TBH, I really don't think Emmanuels comments about "this is an opportunity" have squat to do with the markets, but then again, those little twits on Wall Street often can be rather fickle, so who knows, eh?

But, if the court does NOT reject Prop 8, is it not already then legislated? You seem to be suggesting that the court can simply choose "not to rule," thus placing the onus of action into the congress. I'm not sure that's the case, but I could be wrong and welcome clarification. If the court finds no way to reject Prop 8, is it not already going to be the "law of the land," and already beyond the legislature? This is a question to anyone who has an articulate answer. line[/hr] Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Very interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000) Separately, numerous challenges to the constitutionality of the opposite-sex requirements found in California's marriage statutes, including Prop 22, came before the courts. A San Francisco trial court threw out all of the gender requirements on state constitutional grounds. On appeal, an intermediate court reversed that decision. In December 2006, the California Supreme Court voted unanimously to review all six cases and held oral argument on March 4, 2008, consolidating the cases as In re Marriage Cases. The Court ruled on May 15, 2008, that Proposition 22 violated the state Constitution and was therefore invalid. ...and yet: Despite the act's brevity — 14 words — its effect provoked debate long after its passage. Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution with identical wording [to Prop 22], was passed by voters in the November 4, 2008 general election. Prop 22 deemed unconstitutional. So, Prop 8 with identical wording comes along and may be allowed to stand. I really worry about humanity sometimes. line[/hr] Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNobody? Bueller? Bueller? Did I at least manage to salvage this one from suicide by mod?

Indeed. Point taken.

Well, we all know what happens after there's been a 6th Day violation. Michael Rooker and his crew start chasing after you in a modified Chevy Blazer and kill your Re-Pet.

I'll take a different tack. I'll concede that there are great similarities in the people who wanted "Bush to fail" and the people who want "Obama to fail." I thinks it fair to say that these comments are just short-hand for "I don't like their particular set of policies," not some bigger "I hate America and it's president" insinuation. I didn't care much for many of Bush's policies, but I had the intellectual fortitude to express my distaste specifically on those policies. I did not cast some large, all encompassing, generalizing net out of laziness and just say, "I want Bush to fail." I said, "I want policy X to fail for reasons A,B,&C," or "I disagree with policy Y due to D,F,&G." So, when someone says, "I want Obama to fail," I think it IS exactly the same as when someone said it about Bush. I just find it lazy, and so non-specific as to be completely irrelevant and non-troublesome. Personally though, I don't tend to get worked up when idiots say that they want Obama to fail. That's their opinion, and they're welcome to it. I'm not going to sit here and suggest that their saying it is in any way different from when people said it about Bush, I'm just going to suggest that both approaches lack academic integrity and specificity, and so can be disregarded. I really don't understand the outrage on that comment. Out of all the things that Rush and these others say on a daily basis, that's what we're going to express moral outrage over? Seriously? It's as if your son raped a girl in school, but you're going to instead punish him for not cleaning the dishes after breakfast and leave the far more egregious act to be ignored.

And that would be precisely why I didn't respond. I didn't care enough to waste my time on this particular thread.

Sure, I'd love some. Thanks!