swansont

I think you're using the wrong frame to measure the nanosecond. It's a nanosecond by his clock, not by the other clock. You do have to account for light travel; you can't just ignore it, and you need more rigor (t+d is bad form, since dilation is a multiplicative, not additive, factor) Relativity invites enough confusion on its own, without using sloppy notation.

It wasn't your post to which I was responding, although your "We ban music at night because it disturbs people who can't do anything about it, like go elsewhere." does suggest that a nonsmoker can move away from smoke if he doesn't like it. (And, as I had previously posted, there was no caveat that it was a designated nonsmoking area in my example) But what I quoted was Saryctos, "Don't like the smoke, get away." I wanted to point out that this did not cover all of the situations.

If I find a smoke-free public place, and someone sits down next to me and starts to smoke, why should I be the one that has to move?

This is the slippery slope logical fallacy. Conclusions drawn from faulty logic are invalid. Explain to me how I can choose to not breathe when someone is smoking near me.

The guy's lips are closed — no tongue, so it's not "Frenching." Nothing wrong with what I see.

Umm, did you read the first post? This study addresses precisely that issue, and saw a difference.

There are few positions so extreme that you can't find a credentialed person or two that support it. Creationism has, as bascule has pointed out, biologists who support it, which is what happens when you let iodology drive science. The comparisons are apt. Argument from authority is a logical fallacy, and science is not a democracy, so it's not a matter of lining up an "expert" or two one each side and voting. You have to dig deeper; you have to look at the data and the methodology. I've steered clear of discussion of the data because it's not my field. But several of the criticisms about general methodology being flawed have been off base, as I've pointed that out.

No. We can still still look at the effects of individual factors, e.g. putting CO2 into the atmosphere and measure how much is put there by humans. From that we can predict the overall effect of that action. This does not ignore past warming cycles if it accounts for the factors that caused them.

Sorry, but there is no science is up to that standard. There is always uncertainty, there is always the possibility of some new phenomenon, as yet undiscovered.

Yeah, you can pretty much blame Ben Franklin for it. The 50/50/90 rule in action. (given a 50-50 chance, you will guess wrong 90% of the time)

There are instances where positive charges flow. But that's a minority of the cases.

I remember doing that at a conference workshop in the 90's. The key is to change the capacitance of the flash so it discharges more rapidly. Then you hook it up to a sound transducer, and leave the shutter open. The pop of the balloon triggers the flash, and you can get a time delay be moving the sensor closer or further from the balloon. I posted them on another board here and someone else has posted some.

But it's not about what rights are delineated, it's about what the government is allowed to do, and prevent the people from doing. If tuna fish were found to cause disease, then the government would have the duty to prevent its sale, and it does inspect food. The government does inspect and regulate roller coasters. And if someone were forcing me to eat tuna or ride a coaster against my will, the government would be getting onvolved in that, too. (personally, I have no problem with the government making it illegal to cook fish in a microwave in a public place. Yecch.)

As the saying goes, your right to stretch your arms ends at my nose. Even if there were no evidence of cancer, the mere annoyance would have to be considered. Noise statutes, for example, are in place. The point about second-hand smoke is that it removes my choice when in a place accessible to the public. The evidence that it causes cancer just adds a public-health dimension to the argument.

You can only "observe" a photon by interacting with it.