John Cuthber

If you live long enough, you die of cancer.

One of the most cancer ridden species is as inbred as the European royal family. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_devil#Devil_facial_tumour_disease Inbreeding to the extent of near total genetic homogeneity is at odds with a high rate of evolution.

If (as a home scientist) Did you hear about the constipated mathematician? He worked it out with a pencil and paper. If I want to buy sodium hydroxide or sulphuric acid over the counter, I buy them as drain cleaners. Both chemicals are quite good at doing this. The instructions are written on the container. Follow them. Don't mix the two materials. Just in case you missed that Really, don't mix them.

Why do you think there's "grammar thing" there? Damn you! You have just stifled my freedoms to prevent you thinking what you want, to prevent you dancing in your house and my freedom to ban you from the woods. How dare you destroy my freedoms like that. Now do you realise you were wrong? Your freedom to do something is a restriction on my freedom to stop you doing it. Show me someone who died from smoking. Yet we know that smoking kills.

It's very difficult to generate a paradox without having something self-referential. If you talk about the statement "you don’t look fat in those jeans.” then it doesn't refer to itself and it's not paradoxical The issue of "I am lying" is that it juxtaposes language and metalanguage.

No it isn't, because re. We can't. And all you seem to have achieved is show that is not a paradox. But nobody thought it was.

That's quite possibly the most wrong thing I have ever seen anyone post "During the 20th century, it is estimated that smallpox was responsible for 300–500 million deaths." From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_smallpox OK, show me one that doesn't.

You seem to have missed the point; it was a reply to this, where you seem to to realise that any freedom to do something removes other people's freedom that it not be done. If you are going to post about "freedom" you need to recognise that it isn't going to be absolute. Incidentally, it is true. I didn't need to prove it; we did the experiment before there were vaccine. Lots of people did, in fact, die.

It's an issue of education; if you can explain to people that the "war on drugs" is totally wrong-headed and doomed then you can get a better policy. But it's easy for politicians to accuse their rivals of being "soft on drugs" as if it's a bad thing.

It seems a very sensible approach. Not least because the current approach- legal prohibition- clearly doesn't work, and never did.

Which is relevant to exactly the same extent that walking on roads kills other people. I know what you mean. And that pesky law about murder impinges on my freedom to kill people in much the same way that those commies have enacted laws that stop me stealing the stuff I want. We would clearly be better off if we didn't have these laws.

I think that's a very important point. We already require people to stick to the speed limit. We often mandate safety seats in cars for kids. All of these are mechanisms to protect against "potential" harm and we back them up with criminal proceedings if people don't.

If you ever agree on a metric, (And, I'm not holding my breath) then you need to decide how to play the game. Are you going to choose a best and worst president or are you going to calculate some average over time ? A trend would be interesting too.

What?

Their view works...

That's a little bit frightening, and (perhaps unexpectedly) about 40 years too late.

Unfortunately, it came back. Do you work for Kodak? If not I can't see why you posted the link there. None of what you posted does anything to help the discussion about apertures. The calculation they do is correct, but has nothing to do with the point in hand. You put the screen at the focus- that's why the projector lets you move the lens back and to in order to get the focus where the screen is. The focus is not 86 mm from the lens (It only would be if the slide was an infinitely long way from the lens.)

Research is a good thing. Suppressing the outcome is not legitimately part of research.

I would think that savvy healthcare workers wouldn't get smallpox vaccinations because he disease is extinct. That's because vaccination works really rather well.

That too, is a major contributor to the lack of progress in this thread.

Very smart. However, it's not how a lens forms an image, and it explains why this thread is getting nowhere. PZKPFW got it right last Thursday

I call it what I called it. Did you somehow miss this bit? That seems particularly ironic in a post where you berate someone else thus

Why isn't the screen drawn at the focus?

So, you consider leaving the child's welfare to pot luck is OK? Where do you draw the line? "I left the kid with an open bottle of battery acid- he might be fine".

I didn't say they should attract the same penalty. I asked why would one be a crime, but the other not?