swansont

You should watch that documentary, 50 First Dates

! Moderator Note No, they don’t. It is a premise of the discussion. If you don’t want to accept the premise, you are under no obligation to participate. The topic is outlined in the OP. Off-topic posts have been hidden. Start new threads if you want to discuss other topics.

I doubt building code is that specific that you can remove a few items and be OK. There is a safety margin in construction; if you expect a certain load, the design will hold perhaps twice that (or more) but if the structure has been compromised you don’t know what it will support. If it hasn’t collapsed, you can’t be sure it won’t, if it’s occupied Sending the pollution and possibly poisonous reside elsewhere isn’t much of a solution. And some of the materials might not be combustible. You’re going to burn brick or concrete?

Vote? They're trying to make sure that doesn't happen

Did they object to your faulty logic? Or was it something else?

! Moderator Note This is copyrighted material; you can't share it in this fashion.

! Moderator Note You've been here long enough to know that making it personal is a no-no. Stick to discussing the topic.

Depends on the threshold of "extreme" - I remember some sticker shock when I moved to Vancouver for my postdoc in the mid 90s. On top of the exchange rate sticker shock (Canadian dollar was a few cents lower than it is today, which kinda sucked for paying off the last of my student loan, which was in US currency)

It’s because people invariably try to inject religion into science discussions, which is inappropriate. There is also a tendency to over-reach regarding claims about how the world work, that don’t have scientific backing. Those can be rebutted by science. Note that what I said was not in reference to any scientific evidence regarding the existence of a supreme being. Just the definition of theory. You had an explanation. The problem with “A explains B” is that it’s inconclusive if C, D and E also explain B. Scientific reasoning, even if it’s not science.

Their stated goal was adding justices that would eliminate Roe, Obergfell, and likely Griswold. Seems likely that they sufficiently vetted their choices regarding matters like this, especially since they all fall under an umbrella of non-enumerated rights.

To my mind we have continually missed with our estimation about how low the GOP will go. Contraception and same-sex marriage are next. How do we know this? Because they told us. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2016-republican-party-platform See also https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/jackson-supreme-court-roe-republicans-griswold-loving

Overturning Roe was something that supposedly had no basis in reality, either. Obstacle doesn't have to be real to have a perception of being real, and keep people from traveling.

Your ultra-religious cousin rats you out. The governor sets up checkpoints (gosh, would a governor set up needless checkpoints at their border?) and the police intimidate people, who aren't aware of their right to remain silent. Whatever. Does it really matter? What does this matter if SCOTUS is hell-bent on one course of action?

All drugs are potentially harmful. It just depends on the dose. People have died from drinking too much water. An inherent harmful/not harmful demarcation doesn't exist.

The people that are impacted probably don't care so much if/that fewer people are impacted. If they make it illegal to travel to get an abortion, or to assist in this way (such as with the Texas law civil statute) then this can't be circumvented.

The crux will be of this will get people to vote for democrats who would never vote democrat because the've been quite effectively demonized by the right (vilified for things they have not done, and not done even when holding enough seats to do so (see e.g. they will take your guns!), unlike the GOP, who have done many things the left complained about, and have promised to do more) and also getting people to vote who would not otherwise have voted.

In any kind of representative government, where consent of the governed is present, it's a matter of enough of the populace wanting it to be legal.

In ~half the states they won't. Many of them already have laws lined up to severely curtail the right, if not eliminate it completely.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/116044-math-test/ Scroll down for the latest info

The creator you have hypothesized (aka God). Who, in order to have done what they allegedly did, must be more intelligent than you. You don't know their intent, but instead have determined that it's a flaw because it doesn't suit you, or make sense to you. This is why I mentioned hubris earlier, to assume that something is a flaw and not a feature, and observed that your desires aren't being catered to.

Tidal streams are not out on the ocean, which is what you originally referenced.

And how do you know it was a mistake rather than the intent, and you just can't understand the intent?

Those are images that have been uploaded, rather than LaTex in the post there are hints here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/116044-math-test/

It's simply not possible to make something perfect for everyone if they have differing likes and dislikes. So that can't be the metric by which one judges there to be a flaw.

We're a science site. A scientific theory is rather more than ideas used to explain something. It also involves testing the idea and having it be falsifiable.