Pliny

As Boges points out a minimum wage should not be intended to be a living wage. Someone who can't rise above a minimum wage job will always need to live under the guardianship of someone. Everyone does not have the same intellectual capacity. Those minimum wage jobs should be there for them though so they can feel as though they are contributing something. There is nothing worse than feeling you are being patronized and given everything. It's devastating to your sense of self worth. Life is happening and society is evolving, the third world is steeped in tradition and culture and because it doesn't yet have all the amenities of the first world does not mean it exists in poverty. Generally, they have always lived as they have, and are steeped in tradition and culture that may resist change, especially if it is forced upon them. They have to care about having running water and electricity before they start to demand it. Do-gooders believe they must be lifted out of their poverty. They should be perhaps but it is an evolutionary process and they have to see there are advantages to accepting the solutions of different cultures who are too often critical of their traditions and cultures.

Doctrinal thinking, as in the acceptance of secular humanism? I think most people think there is more to life than just the existence of the body and atheism is not an acceptable alternative. As you say, it may be due to intellectual laziness, at least in part, but I think we are at a transitional point. Intellectually, organized, established old world religions are becoming less relevant and are not satisfying but an absence of any spiritual life is not satisfying either.

Obama and Bernanke have brought the economy back from the brink - Detroit is purposely trying to give the administration a black eye. I think the DOJ should be investigating this, it sounds racist to me? I think there should be some sort of regulations and maybe someone should go to jail. Or is this still a remnant of the failure of the Bush Administration? Seriously. it's a sad day as Detroit files for Chapter 9 bankruptcy. It's the largest city in the US to have ever filed for bankruptcy. San Bernardino,CA, Stockton, CA, Jefferson county, Alabama who's next as the economy mends? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57594436/detroit-files-for-bankruptcy/

Another highest ever reached yesterday. Any bets on how soon it hits 16,000?

This is an important question. Grading used to be on the students work but teachers didn't like that so preferred more to use their judgement of how students were doing. It is often claimed that it is not scientific if something is based on anecdotal evidence or experience yet teachers seem to wish that they had the entire say on how well their students are doing. Rather contradictory in nature, is it not?

I have looked at the assignment now just have to go over on the forum with other posters, discussing it for its pros and cons. As for parents participation, educating is essentially the job of educators. Perhaps the flipped concept will prodcue results so that Educators are not blaming parents for the poor results we are getting now. I spent a year with my two youngest doing homework with them for several hours each school night. I was pretty fed up with it by the time June rolled around. However, it was a good investment since teachers didn't seem to be the best educators. They turned out to be better students than my two older kids but basically because they covered fundamentals more thoroughly during that year. I think the flipped classroom concept may be better than the authoritarian teacher model of the traditional method.

Did I say that no job is not needed anymore? Can't believe I said that. But as a qualifier, let's say, "It is generally thought by the person with a job that his job is important and shouldn't be done away with." No one likes to think their job is not needed anymore. But I was thinking in terms of bureaucrats and them building their empires mostly.

I eat a little too much sugar for my liking. None would be best but I usually have a few happy hour rum and cokes on Friday and can't get a coffee at Tim Horton's without some sort of doughnut, luckily it isn't too often. The nutribullet is pretty good for the price, I guess. Quick and easy to clean up. I like it.The best price I could find was Canadian Tire. They have it on sale sometimes for $99.

I think they may be on the wrong track. They won't research anything they can't patent. One day I watched the "Nature of Things" about helicobacter pylori and how it caused ulcers. They also made the claim in the show that helicobactar pylori if present in the case of some stomach and pancreatic cancers cleared up when the helicobactar pylori was addressed. I haven't heard a peep about it since. It is not untrue that someone with only a hammer sees a lot of nails. I know you are treating my view sarcastically and it is not that I think people are evil, they can be selfish in that they will preserve their own importance, status or position. Chartered Accountants for instance will pooh-pooh or be critical of or sarcastic about any idea to replace the income tax with a different form of tax. Lawyers will object to any simplification of legislation and work to ensure it's complexity - Not for their benefit of course, but for your protection. It is all very necessary and they are convinced of that more than their clients.

This could be true. I don't buy or eat a lot of prepared foods so don't think I get much that way. I ignore low sodium options that are offered as a choice. Soups and salad dressings come to mind which I have very occasionally, once or twice a month perhaps. I have raw vegetables for lunch without a salad dressing along with some sort of protein. A smoothie with fruit and vegetables for breakfast or eggs. I used to eat just eggs for breakfast with salt, of course, but got a nutri-bullet so decided to try smoothies, I think I may go back to mainly eggs.

If I am hanging there I have to use energy to hold on. If I am bound, I do not have to use energy as I am mechanically bound. The bonding is an obvious counter force to gravity. Similar to "normal force" where one brick holds up another brick. Energy is not being expended in such case. Glue, tape, screws, nails, fasteners are all obvious forces that bind or hold things together. Magnetic force binds magnets to ferrous materials. There is no mechanical bonding, there is nothing there to hold it just one force and the opposing force of gravity. Those forces are the only factors, and a force in opposition to another force will produce energy.

"Basically, the report says that consuming anything between 1-1/2 and 3 tsp of salt per day is just fine, and there were adverse effects from eating more than that or less than that." Three tsps per day? Does any one eat that much let alone on a continual basis. There are a few other things to consider, of course, like your climate. If it is hot one may need to replace salt more than in a cold climate. Yes, a healthy mid zone is determined by this study to be best but will the doctor's advice continue to be to reduce your salt intake to a minimum?

Glue provides a mechanical bond that is obvious. It would be the same thing if I taped one thing to another. If I am out on a tree limb hanging down I have to expend energy to keep from falling out of the tree. I have to use force. If my hands and feet are secured to the tree limb in some fashion I do not have to expend any energy or use any force to prevent me falling. I am mechanically bound to the tree. Of course normal force is what supports one brick on top of another. So the question is what and where is the "glue" that holds the magnet up? It's a type of force, not a mechanical bond, such as glue, and any force is a potential of energy. Magnetism, magnetic force, realigns the molecular structure of a ferrous material so that the magnet adheres to it. So the "glue" is a type of energy. There is nothing else but an energy holding it up. There is no glue, there is no tape, there is no rope there is no friction, there is no other significant force besides gravity and magnetic force, no other bonding or binding agent to hold up the magnet than the energy the magnet expends realigning the molecules of the ferrous material. I don't think it can be stated any simpler. Now I know that theoretically it is proven with abstract mathematics that no energy is expended. So that is what has to be explained away as some sort of "glue" or normal force or friction. There cannot be any expenditure of energy, that would be an impossibility per the theory.

I think a correction is necessary here. The magnet on the ceiling is not in its lowest energy state.In order to make the argument it is the lowest energy state from a gravitational or relativity view, the magnetic force would have to be nullified and the magnet would have to fall to the ground. The attractive magnetic force obviously exists and it is a greater force than gravity. If gravity exists as a force, and everyone is sure it does, then it must be pulling on the magnet. The magnetic force is obviously a greater force. There are unequal forces at work, the forces, as you say, will attempt to reach the lowest energy state and the lowest energy state is when forces are in equilibrium. These two forces are not in equilibrium. The rule is that the lowest energy state is where forces are in equlibrium. If a magnet were on a beam and you shook the beam but the magnet stayed then the magnet is exerting a force greater than gravity plus the force of the shaking. It is obvious from that that the magnet is not in its lowest energy state as it has even more force than the force of shaking the beam plus the force of gravity. If you shook the beam violently enough to shake the magnet off then you have overcome the magnetic attractive force. Shaking that beam might take a lot of energy. This essentially states a transfer of energy is necessary to get the magnet to fall. Why, if they are in their lowest energy state? There are no other forces such as normal force or friction at play, as would have to be overcome when moving an object on the floor. The only answer is they aren't in their lowest energy state. Every system does try and find its lowest energy state but magnetism, attractive magnetic force, seems to defy that only when in the proximity of ferrous materials. Otherwise it behaves normally. http://sciencefocus.com/qa/do-magnets-wear-outSo-called permanent magnets are constructed from materials made up of magnetic domains, in which atoms have electrons whose spins are aligned with each other. This alignment is damaged over time, principally as the result of heat and stray electromagnetic fields, and this weakens the level of magnetism. The process is very slow, however: a modern samarium-cobalt magnet takes around 700 years to lose half its strength

It doesn't keep the magnet from moving parallel to the plane of the fridge. If you put a round magnet on your fridge, it will roll downward due to gravity. No friction. Friction? Or is it the area of the magnet in contact with the fridge not creating enough magnetic attraction? A small round bucky ball magnet will stay up on your fridge. The magnetism is great enough to hold that weight and the surface area of the magnet in contact with the fridge is minimal so friction is minimal. The up-down forces are gravity and static friction as you say. The east-west forces are only magnetic attraction. "Normal force" on a perpendicular surface is zero and friction on a perpendicular surface is close to zero. There is no normal force on a horizontal surface and no friction when a magnet is attached on the bottom. You might find that a round or ball magnet may fall off a horizontal surface. It is due to the fact there is not enough surface contact to create a magnetic area large enough to hold its weight. "Normal force" as I mentioned is zero. So we only have magnetic attraction and gravity. McCutcheon's theory is that gravitational force is zero as well. So there is only magnetic attraction. There is a force there and force is not energy but potential, similar to voltage. When the magnet aligns the electrons of a ferrous material to create an opposite attractive charge that requires energy. Force is only potential. A magnet alone or not near a ferrous material expends no energy but has potential of creating energy. Placing a small ferrous object near a magnet and it snaps the object to it. The motion of the object toward the magnet is obviously an expenditure of energy. Holding the object in position is also an expenditure of energy. Although mathematically, gravitational theory proves no expenditure of energy. That is the error. Yes, it is explained by current theory but must ignore practicality to do so. He is an electrical engineer. I'm certain he understands the difference between force and energy. The example like the fridge magnet prove that science has to ignore it and somehow explain it away. I myself, can see flaws in McCutcheon's theory. I have yet to see anything practical come out of it except maybe call into question some of the obvious failings of current relativity theory. Well, done. You managed to regurgitate your instructional materials and get a passing grade. You did pass didn't you? Of course not, she would be a crackpot if she did. She is researching the area and of course the law of the conservatino of energy must be upheld. A theory is only so good as it can make things predictable and can practically be applied to increase our understanding. And that is basically what science is. Once it becomes authoritarian and pompous it becomes a burden, such as our Anthropogenic global warming theory, then it is of no use. Understanding brings simplicity not complexity. Things are never so complex as when you don't understand them. Relativity and gravity are theories and have been useful, gravity moreso than relativity. They have not proven to be the definitive theory of everything but it is all that science has. They are trying to make predictions from it even though there is little to be learned from a practical application point of view. That is exactly how current physics would attempt to explain itself. There is a change of state on a sub-atomic level by aligning particles and holding them in position though. Theoretically that can be and has to be explained mathematically. It cannot be explained practically.

The current theory as you describe it is that gravity is a force. I don't think friction is the reason a magnet does not slide down your fridge. The molecules of the fridge are altered, i.e. aligned, and an attractive force on the molecular level keeps it from falling. The argument is not that current theory is invalid or has not been useful. The argument is that it is a "theory" as there are things that it does not explain. Thus we get off into bizarre tangents like string theory. It remains that research is being done along the lines of current accepted theory, and it gives physics a direction. A different theory would mean taking things in a different direction. The momentum is in the direction of current theory. I understand that. I don't think anyone here has read Mr. McCutcheon's book. Has anyone? I believe that the concensus here is it would be a waste of time. Everyone here is trying to explain physics to me from the the perspective of Relativity. And the reason that magnets are what they are and do what they do is all explained by that theory. Well, it is perhaps. But some physicists don't think it is as I have cited. But the fact is that Mr. McCutcheon's theory and the understanding of it means not relating it to the theory of Relativity or Newton's theory of gravity. There are some fundamental laws in his theory that require looking at it by itself. Now it is, just a theory. It won't change physics overnight and it may not change it at all. It is a theory just as Newton's and Einstein's ideas are theory. Now I picked up the magnet thing because without a gravitational force it is a force and energy is expended. Energy is not expended under current understanding. But that is because force is measured with a formula that includes distance as a factor. If distance (D) is zero then force is zero and the expending of energy would be zero. In McCutcheon's theory energy is expended even if it is just in realigning the molecules of whatever it is adhering to. Gotta go.

Thanks for chiming in Bill but in McCutcheon's theory, gravity is not a basic force, it is non-existant. Magnetism is a demonstrable force and does expend energy to counter other forces of matter in motion. I haven't looked at the book for awhile and I know there was at least one fundamental demonstrable flaw in the theory, not unresolvable, I don't think, maybe he has resolved them. I will have to check.

I don't think Mr. Suzuki is xenophobic but the charge could be laid if the immigration policy favoured countries that were not white or European or Japanese and Suzuki thought immigration should stop, even if he gave other reasons for it to stop. But I think that Mr. Suzuki basically sees two classes. The intellectual class and the rest of the masses. I note his reference to Trudeau and his policy of multi-culturalism which is proving to be a failure. Our immigrants, in my view, should assimilate in the culture, diversity can be maintained by individuals without government having to foster it or fund it to support it. It is often unfair in that one culture may receive more funding than another, it being dependent uponhow much government or constituencies are lobbied for largesse from the public purse.

As I explained, and thank you for replying by the way, we have built an organism over the millions of years, practically from the basic cell to the human organism and if we wanted to we could evolve further to endure space travel. What is incongruous is considering that we are not already robotic in nature, as we are by scientific definition nothing but matter. Evolution should then be, obviously, a simple matter of the organism adapting itself to an environment. Well, if you wish to travel in space with conventional methods and reach any destination you would have to evolve somehow. Sorry, it's late and I am getting tired.

You believe you have explained something, actually you haven't explained anything, you've only regurgitated what you have read. I happen to see a magnet on my fridge and not falling off as gravity would seem to imply it should. Why it doesn't is the question. Really, if it can align the molecules of the fridge so that it adheres, it must be doing something that requires energy. Molecules do not align unless there is some force that will do that and hold them there. Believe it or not, holding molecules in alignment takes energy. Don't think so. Force requires energy. Oh how I have argued about the importance of definitions only to be told they unimportant. They are inmportant. I don't think he has redefined anything. I think you are attempting to redefine things. There is a force called gravity, its attraction to other masses is based upon its own mass. It exerts a force upon other masses that hold them in equilibrium. How is there no energy exerted? Because there is no force. Mr. McCutcheon has not found faults in modern physics. He has attempted to explain with a theory what they have not been able to explain. Modern physics is a theory. You have to understand that first, just like the Big Bang is a theory. A theory explains certain phenomena and allows for the prediction of other phenomena. It may be correct theory and it may not be a correct theory. It's usefulness is in its explanation of observed phenomena and its ability to predict other practically applicable phenomena, and until all phenomena are explained does it fall out of the realm of theory. Well, what have all physicists of the past two hundred years been taught? No energy is expended in holding a piece of matter in a position where it does not fall. I know the mathematical formula will tell us that no energy is expended. So that must prove it, and I am wrong. However, 1+1 = 2 is merely an abstract notion. Is there really anything that equals another thing and can, when added together, equal to two. Mathematical Theory is all nicey-nicey but will only explain so much. In the case of energy, we can express mathematically that no motion or change in motion is equal to no exertion of energy but that is not necessarily the reality.

It's a syndrome. And quite peculiar to British Columbians especially among the native born. "I'm here and we don't need any more people, thank you very much. Bye-bye now!"

Bwa ha ha. Suzuki is worth a laugh. It's the "I'm here now so let's close the door." syndrome. I find him, to be kind, just a little arrogant. He's a person who believes wholly in the classless society, run by the intellectual class. (see signature) After all, Cuba doesn't need immigration to keep itself plugging along. It just needs to keep people from leaving.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more comment on this. After all, it could contribute to another boom in MBS creation by Wall Street. These mortgages are obviously good quality and the MBS's well above junk status if they are being bought up by the Fed? Investors should find that encouraging and be diving in there. For some reason they are being cautious or maybe |Wall Street is restrained by new regulations from things like the Dodd-Frank bill.

The head of the CIBC is now saying that the dollar should be at par by the end of the year. Is there a conflict? What happened to the low demand for resources and commodities? Is that going to pick up? http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/07/08/business-loonie-cibc.html

You can't have it both ways. For decades the protective tariffs and policies of the first world kept the third world poor. Free trade started to improve the lot of the third world and they could finally become competitors in the world market. Of course that would affect our industries here which were bouyed up with high wages and benefits and costs that the third world was far behind in. We could keep our high wages and continue to just redistribute the wealth through economic aid. We know though that Dictators thrive on that and generally keep their subjects in poverty. Obama is one of those leaders that thinks the best way to redistribute wealth is to have government do it. Perhaps though, we should bite the bullet and let the market enrich those impoverished third world nations. I know you probably feel some apprehension about them becoming masters of their own destinies and rising up and decimating the first world. Better they be forever beholding to us. Right?