Phi for All

Trying to rocket our waste off-planet is too dangerous, even if we could justify the costs (roughly US$20K/kg, or about US$5-6T). One Challenger-level incident and we've got a bunch of nasty in the upper atmosphere. So if you had a facility in space that produced hazardous waste, and it was near enough to a BH that you could safely and cheaply put a capsule full of it on a radial trajectory, you could use the BH as a dump, right?. A minute out, the capsule might still have enough energy to change course, but once past the EH, spacetime is so heavily curved by the gravity that there is only one path to follow, for anything, no matter how much energy it has available to escape. The path in both space and time leads to the dimensionless point at the center. We can't know what happens, but it sounds more like a trash compactor than a dump.

Your questions are unclear. If you want to throw waste into a BH, why do you need to land? And because of the nature of a BH, there's no way you could leave if you did. Past the event horizon, no amount of energy will ever let you escape.

Which series is this? I enjoyed the clever realms he created in his Richard & Kahlan novels. Loved the wizard's rules.

This is pretty basic stuff. Substitute almost anything, good or bad, for "dying by suicide" in your above question, and I think you'll have your answer. How does one person blowing up a building encourage others to do the same? How does one person eating an ice cream cone encourage others to do the same? Emulating observed behavior is one of the foundations of how we learn, from a very young age. It's a spectrum ranging from avoidance to admiration to hero worship, and it's very powerful. Also, I'm not sure I agree that sending a message that suicide is NOT OK is necessarily stigmatizing it. You can decry an action without implying anything about the person performing it. I want to be able to say suicide is a horrible thing, without implying a person is horrible for contemplating it. Does that make sense?

Please, no. We can talk about this the way the OP intended, the way your first post did. As soon as you make this about you personally, it becomes a medical issue and the thread gets shut down We are unequipped to offer professional advice, you know this. Please don't make this about diagnosing your situation. I was hoping we could discuss the subject without violating the rules. This should be talked about, but without doing unintended harm.

Then why don't more suicides burn themselves? I'm just saying it's a poor argument, that the pain is the same. I disagree with your third paragraph.

Probably why I specifically made sure to say: You claimed calling suicide cowardly wasn't right because both the suicide and the accidental death have the same kind of pain. I don't think that's true in most cases. Suicides get to choose how and where, they know it's coming, there are many factors that make it less painful. I just didn't agree with that part of your argument.

If there are many types of mental illness, and mental illness does not discriminate, then why wouldn't some people find ridicule a meaningful method of prevention? I assume, of course, that you would include ridicule in a list of stigmatizing deterrents. And I'm not advocating it for everyone, but I do think some people want to be told their thoughts of suicide are silly and transitory. So I'm loathe to remove that tool from a professional's bag. Can you give examples of ways suicide prevention is being turned into "taunting"? Again, it seems like everyone is different, including what they interpret as callousness and sadism. Are some mental health professionals advocating sadism if they point out how suicide affects survivors? I don't like calling suicide "cowardly", but I also don't agree that these deaths are equally painful as their accidental counterparts. Cutting blood vessels isn't the same as losing an arm, just as dying by GSW isn't the same as a bullet to the head.

Diverse skills, personalities, needs, preferences, and abilities amongst a population help keep it vibrant, so you're right, it's fantastic that everyone is different. In fact, I'd argue that trying to set ideals on any aspect of human societies is going to limit us. Why should everyone like the same things? Why should being a banker be better than being a baker or biologist? I'd say the differences you're pointing out stem from the intentions involved. It's not good to make someone feel like crap, but there's a difference between trying to humble someone who has too much pride, and trying to humiliate that same person (the dictionary may disagree). Is the intention to help or harm? Or perhaps humility is a personal perception, the same as pride, and something you need to be straight with yourself on, rather than worrying about what others think. Pride is a motivator and a deadly sin at the same time, like wrath, envy, sloth, greed, lust, and gluttony. Abuse them at your peril.

This reads like, "Linguists believe that being able to speak in a foreign language makes them better able to be understood and express themselves in that language, but fact is what they are doing isn't speaking." It makes no sense, but it sounds like something someone who didn't understand a language would say about it. "Boy, those French have a different word for EVERYTHING!" -- Steve Martin

internetcynic has been banned for rejecting our rules about discussing conspiracy. Evidence is the key for all scientific discussions, folks.

As do many Americans, but not enough in leadership. Too many politicians are tied to private profit from arms, prisons, law enforcement, and other opportunities that benefit from current gun laws (or lack thereof). Our two party system keeps the stupidity going even though enough elements on both sides want stricter gun control. You can't be a Republican who wants to ban assault rifles and expect to have a voice in the current government.

If the war was on our own soil, I don't see the NRA boosters giving up personal defense, especially during an emergency involving enemy combatants. I think the national emergency angle would work best in tightening existing regulations and making background checks stricter. We're used to tightening our belts/going to extremes in times of emergency, and if we had a war it might be persuasive to think about avoiding death by friendly neighborhood fire. Some public service announcements about our military mistaking our own civilians for the enemy because they were waving a gun might help some see the light. But those folks were compensated, iirc, and the economy was the worst it had ever been. The leadership now would have to figure out how to frame it as necessary for our very survival, and that's how guns are often considered in the first place.

Our species would have overrun the planet by now if we didn't die off. Building in our own obsolescence also helps the species evolve more vibrantly. This assumes two things. One, that this god wanted species from one system to interact with those from others. Perhaps it prefers keeping its lab samples separated? And two, you assume this wasn't a challenge we're supposed to overcome with our big old brains. Perhaps this god subscribes to the throw-them-in-the-deep-end school of thought? Because after all, don't the folks who overcome the biggest challenges deserve the biggest rewards? Maybe this god wants to weed out the ones who are just going to whine about obstacles.

The stiffness of the rim relates more to the seal around the embouchure and the player's comfort, doesn't it? Using polymers instead of steel or brass seems less expensive, and might allow you to play with different sizes of cup to get a pleasing sound. You can also change the rim's flatness/roundness more easily, I would think. The throats and backbores are fairly standard, but if polymers make it easier to change the rims and cups I'd say it's worth looking into.

Outstanding!

franco malgarini has been banned for not obeying our advertising rules, and for not listening when warned that he was breaking our advertising rules.

ag400002 has been suspended for a week for serial hijacking, and for posting speculative notions in mainstream sections after being warned repeatedly.

I don't want to starve, so I grab all three and wipe my hand on the bush.

ravell has been suspended for a week for continuing to post the same links to unsupported material, which is soapboxing.

I think the opposing side of the spectrum is a denier, not a skeptic. A skeptic would be right in the middle between the believer and the denier, on the fence, waiting to come off the fence on the side with the most supportive evidence.

I worked my way through it while Jordan was still writing it. I'm a fantasy fan, and I loved his system of magic, and the concept of the Wheel and the Weave as a representation of the tapestry of life. His characters were individual and interesting, and the main ones were highly relatable. My big problem was that Jordan seemed to feel that if a supporting character didn't have a first and last name, it wouldn't mean anything to you when they got killed. If he'd given them recognizable names, that might have worked, but they were mostly made up, and many sounded alike (Alivia, Aviendha, Alviarin, etc). And there were so many of them! Every Aes Sedai and Aiel had to have a full name and background, as well as all the leaders and representatives of all the lands. If a character spoke, they had a full bio sheet, and I didn't feel it was always necessary. I think the series got away from Jordan towards the end of his life. He had so many fans, and so many awesome characters and plot lines to work with, it must have been insane trying to tie it all up and end it. I think Sanderson did a great job with the last 3 (?) books, and kept to the spirit of the story while moving it along towards a finale that made sense and satisfied rabid fans.

That's a LOT of books, congratulations. And it was Brandon Sanderson took up the series after Jordan's death.

Phantom5 has been suspended for a week for hijacking threads and posting videos without context after being warned not to do exactly that.

A little chamois and some wool and I think I could make a winter hat look just like that. I larva good ski cap!