MigL

The Event Horizon is a mathematical construct. There is nothing actually there, it is simply a radius defining an ( imaginary ) sphere. This radius is defined as the distance from the center of the given mass where the escape velocity is equal to the speed of light. Which is an impossibility for any particle with mass. Even though the massive energies involved ( kinetic due to the extreme potential ) make it seem otherwise, anything emanating from a BH's event horizon originates outside it,

Then we agree. The problem is the crimes committed by the perpetrators. But there are things that can be done to minimize risks for the victims. Do we still need to go on about this ?

Every time I open a new page, this morning, my AV informs me that it has aborted a connection to Googleheads, a known adware/spamming infection. Can someone please look into it ?

I asked three questions in my post, John. I readily concede the points you make, but I'd like you ( and Phi ) to answer those questions.

What's a pain ? The diarrhea or the spelling ?

While Phi has an interesting strategy in this discussion, simply treat the opposing argument as part of the "fucking problem", so that you never have to discuss the points being made, I think it is dishonest. A recent trend, say in the past 15 yrs that phones have built-in cameras, is the penchant of young women ( teenagers even ) to take naked selfies, or even engaged in sexual activities, and send them to young men or boyfriends, in their quest for popularity. Often, when they subsequently break-up, or even while they are still friends, the young man, out of jealousy or an attempt to impress his friends, will redistribute these photos over the internet. These actions have led to suicide in several reported cases. Even 'stars', such as J Lawrence, K Cuoco and K Upton, have had their cloud accounts compromised and had their pictures, nude or engaged in various sex acts, redistributed over the internet. In this case the motivation is not lust, but greed, as there is financial gain involved, so the cloud account hacking could involve women as the perpetrators. Now, no-one is suggesting that a crime hasn't been committed by the perpetrators. But, do you really think young women should not be told this is dumb thing to do ? Do you think they should not be informed that the 'cloud' is just a server ( in other words, someone else's computer ) ? Do you think young women should be told that their 'value' is NOT just their physical attributes ? ( do you leave your keys in the ignition of your running car when you go in the store, because if it is stolen, even though you are the victim, some insurance companies will place you at fault ) I don't know what kind of utopian La-La land you live in Phi, but if you think lust, greed, jealousy and vengefulness, the human conditions which lead to these type of crimes can be 100% eradicated, then you're a naïve sap, and I've got a bridge in Brooklynn to sell you. And if you can't fully eradicate the conditions that lead to these types of crimes, you'd be dumb not to practice some risk management.

Oh yes, and we've been spending all our time saying women are to blame for being attacked ???? Obviously we have a difference of opinion, you won't change my mind and I won't change yours. So I'll keep telling women I care about to be careful out there because the world is an unforgiving place, and it may keep them from getting assaulted. You'll keep telling them its not their fault for getting assaulted.

NO, obviously not equal. But they should not be entirely dismissed either.

Interesting take. But what if we discussed ways smaller countries could stick together to stand up to the 'Big Bad Wolf' ? Or we discussed ways for them to bring these unfair dealings to light for the rest of the world, such as in a World Court ? Or we discussed ways for the people of Puerto Rico to be better educated so that they know they have other options ? In other words why can it not be a two pronged approach; protection for the victim as well as taking down the perpetrator ? ( see, you call it blame, I call it protection )

Doesn't matter if she's a Republican. She can be bought. And she has more 'exposure' on Daily Mail than anyone ( except maybe M Merkel, Prince Harry's squeeze ), And I just lost all respect for the Rock also. Why can't entertainers/media personalities stick to what they know ?

This thread was originally about how power over others is used inappropriately, specifically with regards to inappropriate sexual advances. And since the members of this forum LOVE analogies, I' m going to suggest one more, but not involving sex... A lot of greedy, powerful corporations exploit cheap labour in third world countries, just as a lot of rich, powerful individuals exploit disadvantaged people. The companies conspire to keep these third world economies in shambles so that they can maximize their own profits instead of paying equitable wages for labour ( or benefits/pensions/environmental regulations etc. ). The powerful individuals use their power to buy influence, take advantage of the disenfranchised, get elected President of the US, and amass even more power and wealth ( you probably thought I was going to say D Trump, but he's just a clown; the better example is V Putin ). If we started a thread discussing how these third world countries or disadvantaged people could better help themselves, the actions they should take, the protection they should demand, the people they should vote for, etc., who here would say that we shouldn't be talking about this, as it implies that, if they have to take some action, then part of the fault is being assigned to them ?

Can't be bothered to read your lengthy post and all its links. Got as far a the 'quark sea' in a proton, that you claim gives it most all its mass... I can assure you, it is virtual bosons, the gluons, which comprise the 'sea', and give hadrons most of their mass.

And how does gravity work for other leptons, like electrons, muons, neutrinos. Or for bosons, for that matter, which also couple gravitationally. Oh well, back to the drawing board...

When R Reagan ran for the presidency, he hadn't been a media personality for about 30 yrs. This all started with the clown President, D Trump, and don't kid yourself, the media may pretend to hate him, but he gets ratings and sells papers ( he butters their bread ). Most real politicians are boring, and most people don't like reading about, or watching them. But America being what it is, I can see a bunch of back room Republicans or Democrats, picking a suitably popular person to run for the presidency, while they pull the puppet strings. If the Democrats run O Winfrey, I can see the Republicans drafting K Kardashian for their candidate. All they need to do is look good on TV, and generate lots of free publicity so that their name is recognised at the ballot box. What a circus !!!

"Who the hell suggested that ?" Maybe I should go back and find it... It was suggested that the civil rights movement went forward because Rosa Parks and M L King put themselves in precarious situations to enact change. That's who.

I shouldn't have to explain, John, because you're a very bright guy... The comment was made earlier ( don't recall by whom ) that saying women should practice risk mitigation gives the perpetrators an excuse for their behaviour. So their logic is that we should not discuss risc mitigation because it enables the predators, who Zap named 'the dregs of society'. Those are the dregs that are effectively preventing him from discussing how to protect his wife or ( hypothetical ) daughter. Just got back from lunch ( I'm NA Eastern time) with a woman, and would you believe this was the topic of discussion. And it turns out she agrees. She considers the attitude of some men just one of the many risks she has to consider every day ( as do we all ) and she would be stupid not to try to mitigate some of those risks. I could be wrong, but it seems Gees was the only woman on this thread ( the OP ) . and she seems to have left. I know we have other women members. Your opinion is extremely valuable, much more so than ours. Please share your ideas on the issue.

And that won't solve the problem either, John. Neither our sons or daughters behave as we would like. But, yes its a start.

Wasn't at RR, was it ?

Ok, we've established that there is a problem with unwanted sexual advances/assaults on women. Now let's try to come up with some workable solutions. Zapatos has suggested risk mitigation as one small part of addressing the problem ( and I happen to agree with him ). Risk mitigation by itself, of course won't solve the problem, how could it ? It may include being aware of your surroundings, avoiding certain situations or being appropriately dressed for those situations, knowing your rights and avenue for complaints, letting others know where you are, etc. ( sounds exactly like the risk mitigation I do when going on vacation ) The rest of you guys have suggested this increases the problem, and that men's attitudes should change/ the world should be safe for all. As to mechanisms for bringing this change about all we've gotten is that women should continue to be assaulted ( without taking precautions )as that will bring about this change. Not one person has made concrete suggestions, like changing laws ( as if that would help in other countries ), changing the education system to empower women, or alternatively, educate men on women's issues ( but alas, there will still be people intent on doing bad things to others ). So who is taking the more realistic approach here ?

I beg to differ. The subject of risk minimization brought a response that such an attitude is hypocritical, and a big part of the reason why the problem never goes away ( see the top of this page ). And an up-vote. So at least two people agree with that assessment.

You're right, it doesn't solve anything... But maybe me and Zap are tired of being labelled defenders of rapists and women's assailants ( by certain members ), for advocating a course of action which may mitigate some rapes and assaults on women. A course of action which everyone readily uses in their daily life to reduce certain other ( non gender related ) risks caused by other people. That was the point of the example. Are we going to solve the broader issue being discussed anytime soon ? Of course not. Until then, I will advise women I care about to minimize their risks. ( just like I would advise Phi NOT to go strolling through Central Park at night )

I believe the aerospace industry is still the largest user of Titanium. It basically combines the high strength of steel with the light-weight of Aluminum, along with better corrosion and temperature resistance than Aluminum. It is expensive to work and has lost a lot of its shine compared to composite materials ( the preferred choice for strength and lightness ), but still sees applications in hi-temp and/or hi-stress areas ( of turbine engines for example ). As far as its chemical properties are concerned, the only thing I remember from Gr. 13 Chemistry, is that Titanium will burn in a Nitrogen atmosphere.

That wasn't the intent and you know it. If I urged you not to go for a stroll through Central Park ( or any 'unsafe' place ) at night, would Phi accuse me of defending muggers and robbers ? Because that is exactly what he's doing WRT this OP.

Very well, Phi. Lets forget this emotionally charged subject, for a minute and consider another of society's problems, that happens to be genderless. I think we can all agree that people who mug, rob and do harm to others are responsible for their actions and their victims have no blame. Would you take a stroll through Central park at night ? Or stroll down Mulberry St in Baltimore ? Or parts of Detroit or Washington DC ? Or would you take precautions ? And does the fact that I would urge you to take precautions, mean that I'm defending muggers, robbers and gang-bangers ? Or that I don't wish those problems didn't exist ? And sadly no, I'm in my late fifties; women don't 'grab' me anymore. ( damn, old age sucks ! )

Wow, you went off on a tangent, Phi. ( did your dad really clean his shotgun in front of your sister's dates; I thought that only happened in the movies ) Maybe you're being idealistic, or maybe naïve, and striving for a better world is certainly commendable, but until then, risk mitigation is a must. And as Zapatos has repeatedly pointed out, it isn't just women's problems. There are lots of cases where the world is 'ugly' for ALL people. Should we all wait until the world is ideal for everyone and take no precautions to minimize risks ? And simple education, or mind-set is not the answer. It's not that some men cannot control themselves; the problem is they don't want to. Yes, there are evil people and dangers in this world. Worked out well for Rosa Parks, iNow, but maybe MLK should have taken some precautions, as it regretfully cost him his life ( eventually ).