JaKiri

From a moralistic point of view, that's bad. From a police (deterrent) point of view, it'll work well. Of course, 'arrested' as you said in your first post is very different from 'charged'.

Whilst I oppose this in terms of personal freedom, I must comment that it's their own fault for having illegal drugs in the vehicle.

I think you mean 'red shift'.

What?

I doubt they would bother searching if they didn't have 'reasonable suspicion'. Of course that depends on your definition of 'reasonable', which is another issue entirely.

So what you're saying is that someone who's perfectly contented, doesn't have any social pressure and takes a low enough level of something that it doesn't have any significant effect won't become addicted? You are, without a doubt, the new Sherlock Holmes.

You're ignoring the powerful effect of peer pressure here. Someone who's not dedicated to independent learning and goes to a school where there's less of an antiacademia feel will obviously tend to have a less lengthy education than one with lots of nerds, as it were.

I think it just means that people with illegal drugs in the car shouldn't break the traffic laws. I don't see it as a violation of personal freedom.

So you're saying that the use level is the level at which the side effects don't occur? There wouldn't be much of the intended effect there either, and I call circular reasoning.

I see nothing wrong with that policy, assuming that the stop and search part of the policy is exactly as it says it is (ie for some other offense). You appear to be arguing that if the police came round to your house for some other reason, they should ignore a corpse sitting at your kitchen table.

I didn't say anything about using dirty needles, lethal doses, or outside of 'occasional social settings'. I take it that you count its enormous capability for physical addiction as 'ok' then?

Water is a very very odd substance. Because of the way it bonds, it expands on freezing, unlike everything else, which contracts. It's the reason that the seas are liquid, and the land is solid. If water had the same properties of, well, anything else, the seas would be solid.

The probe DID make it to mars, and the thing it came to mars on is transmitting valuable information. Unlike NASA's Mars Polar Whatsit, which sort of burnt up because of incompetence. As Radical Edward said, it would have been better to have ALL of them suceed. It's pointless having country vs country on science, as Oxbridge would win (hoho).

Matter is the 'stuff' in question. Mass is a quantity of the stuff. It's like saying that people are made of tall to say that mass = matter.

It doesn't mean there's an antieverything else though. And -ve mass is only speculatory at best, although so was antimatter once.

You get them at Bloaty's Pizza Hog

There is an antigravity, that is derived from the interaction of antimass (NOT ANTIMATTER, that's a positive mass with a reversed charge, but antimass; negative energy) with normal mass.

They don't. NQP.

So, that rules out drugs like cocaine, heroin, and the like.

See: Penicillin

(probability of event|situation) Such as rolling a die. The chance of getting a 1 (on a fair die) is 1/6. Chance is a vital thing in science; it's only by calculating the error of an experiment, and the chance of it happening without changing the hypothesis, that anything ever gets done

It depends what you mean by 'the effects of the expansion of space'; if you mean the 'going apart' thing, then it depends on the mass, and the distance between the objects. Or the 'force' if you prefer.

What's the opposite of a cat?

Isn't it because it's on GD, and GD is excluded for that kind of thing?

I don't. I find it unnecessary.