swansont

If the photon takes the upward path, you know it did by the WPD, because the photons are entangled. But you know if it took the downward path, too, because you see a flash but without a coincident signal from the WPD. I don't think that layer of complexity adds anything but confusion, and entanglement is confusing enough.

I think that were you to try and make behavior like this illegal, you'd end up banning a whole lot of (more) legitimate freedom expression. The social price you pay for having such a freedom is that some of it is going to be silly, and some of it is going to offend a fraction of the population. If kids see it, tell them it's not really kitty litter, and that the person is being silly. Like candy bugs, gummi worms etc. that Phi mentioned. Are people so far removed from real dangers that we have to manufacture this stuff? The example of drinking from a bottle labeled "bleach" would be stupid, but not so irresponsible as leaving that stuff where your kids could get at it. It is somewhat reminiscent of the recent story to cut some scenes from Tom & Jerry cartoons because Tom is smoking, and people are worried that it will encourage that type of behavior. Aren't they worried about encouraging hitting people with frying pans, to see faces take that shape? It's a cartoon cat, for crying out loud.

Martin's got some links about that in another thread. It appears we're getting to the point where we can tell. http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=22722 I think the combination of determining size, mass and orbit get you a significant fraction of the information you need.

Right. Remember, youth and enthusiasm are no match for age and treachery.

Which will eventually stifle innovation as people lose the ability to think. If it goes on too long, nobody will know how to fix the machines when they break, because learning that stuff was "too hard."

I can imagine sunburn on places normally covered could hurt... "Oxposure" — is that being too revealing with your beast of burden? As far as the original question, what are the criteria for causing a breach of the peace? I think it's not something you should be convicted for, but being arrested is a different matter. In the US it would probably ultimately be considered protected speech/expression.

The extra volume they take up is above the water. They displace water equal to their own mass which is why they float, and it all cancels. (you may now either say "Eureka!" or look up Archimedes' principle)

The antarctic ice cap is much larger than the arctic, and since Greenland is mostly above the arctic circle I don't see why it shouldn't be counted. We're not talking about the infinitesimal amount of ice located precisely at the pole, are we? There is a secondary effect to the warming. Water's density is temperature dependent. As it warms above 4 C, (where its density is largest) it expands, which also contributes to rising ocean levels.

I think it's that only 63 people were studied is what reduces the reliability of the statistics. You can roll a four-sided die and get statistics on it. The fact that it's got four sides isn't a limiting factor, it's how many times you roll it that tells you how surprising it is to have a deviation from 25%

Science is inherently quantitative. To not use math is to use no tools at all.

Oh, please. Mathematics is the constraint? The only thing adding math would do is make checking predictions of the conjecture easier (quantitative = much less waffle room). Normally you do that part before coming up with cute acronyms and abbreviations for your work.

Not applicable, though, in this particular study. "Each person in the trials was asked to give researchers names and phone numbers of four relatives or friends. These were then called at random and told to ring the subject who had to identify the caller before answering the phone."

Given the uncertainty in the counting statistics alone, the comment about the odds of this happening being one in a thousand billion is inexcusably erroneous. You don't even to look for systematic flaws yet.

Theoretically, yes. Practically, almost. A colleague is getting ready to deploy a device that should be able to do just that, and has already used a lower-resolution apparatus to detect larger objects http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AAS...207.6813H Larger extrasolar planets have already been detected, of course. addendum (just got an email pointing to this): http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=806 link to paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608489 "As the paper points out, an Earth-sized planet transiting such a star will block about 1 percent of the stellar flux from that star. If in a habitable 3.85-day orbit, the planet will make a transit that lasts about forty minutes. These are workable numbers, as the paper says:"

I saw that. Just to note: the statistical uncertainty on a sample size of 63 is about 12.6%.

AFAIK the only "powers" any of the resident experts have (me included, as YT notes) is their opinion in recommending someone or not, to which the admin folks will apply the appropriate weighting factor. If they decide that no new experts are needed at this (or any) time, that weighting factor will probably be zero.

I know that in prior discussions (before all the alcohol kicked in, anyway) number and quality of posts was one of the factors. No sense in Sneetching someone if they aren't going to contribute.

I think not. ICBM's are targeted to specific points. Ships can move a reasonable distance in the time it would take to fire an ICBM and have it arrive at the pre-programmed target.

Do you expect that the piston will accelerate at a different rate than the other components?

Strength isn't just muscle mass, it's also mechanical advantage. If the muscles/tendons attach at a different point on the bone, you will get a different torque for the same force. There is also the issue of the opposibility of the thumb, which AFAIK is not a function of strength.