Phi for All

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!

I know what I'm going to be next Halloween!

There is some truth to this part. I've always been a proponent of learning, and I'm prejudiced against folks who demonstrate anti-learning behavior. When I hear someone reject knowledge because it doesn't fit with their belief system, or they make something up because they didn't understand the mainstream explanation, I just can't help but feel the person is being willfully obtuse. I felt that way when I heard Donald Trump doesn't like "knowing things" ahead of time because it spoils his perfect intuition. I feel the same way when I hear people rejecting mainstream science in favor of something either they've made up, or someone else made up and emotionally persuaded/coerced others into believing it. I also have a couple of hard-to-shake prejudices about religious folks. I tend to think of evangelists as con men trying to fleece people in one way or another. The idea of converting people turns me off a great deal, so that's probably at the heart of that prejudice. I also (weirdly) tend to think of people singing hymns to their god(s) as a good example of worship, one that doesn't impinge on anyone else, and is an uplifting, creative, natural experience. While I might have problems with the religion itself, or its documents, or its claims, I tend to view folks singing with the choir as spiritual people expressing themselves joyously, and I have no problems with that. It's not a negative prejudice, but it's still judging folks based on a group. But I disagree that presenting evidence wouldn't change my mind. That's EXACTLY what changes my mind these days, better evidence.

NortonH has been banned, since warnings and suspensions had no affect on his love of breaking the rules.

That must have been right after the Vitamin Sea dried up.

Axe has been banned as a sockpuppet of John Harmonic.

! Moderator Note rian copper45, this is a science discussion forum. Your post reads more like a blog entry. What did you wish to discuss specifically?

Haven't you realized it's not an argument but a misunderstanding? It's been explained to you, but you're being (purposely?) obtuse about it, and keep preaching instead of listening.

I'm so sorry I can't do more to help you understand the nature of scientific methodology, and how theories are always challenged by experimentation, even when they support them. I think there must be something hindering your critical thinking in this regard. Perhaps it's your fixation on mistakes, trying again to bounce them in one hand while ignoring the mountain of trustworthy success in the other.

I think you make a mistake in ignoring the staggering amount of methodically recorded evidence for mainstream theories, each piece of which was an attempt to challenge those theories. It makes your arguments look like you're trying to judge the scientific merits by bouncing them in either hand.

Taxonomist didn't make it to 7 posts before violating most of the rules, so he's banned. Probably mikemikev anyway, same flavor of hate.

Then you need to stop using the word "proof", because that's exactly what it means. There is no evidence that does more than support an explanation, and science looks for the preponderance of evidence rather than "proof". Also, the 4th choice should be "... is something science isn't designed to explain." The existence of god(s) is outside of natural examination. Science needs observation and predictability, both of which god(s) lack.