swansont

But the "what" that is needed is the issue. The statement was about being "allowed to use the drug" and you contorted that into being forced to use the drug.

Oh, come on. Freedom to drink (i.e. not being illegal) is not the same thing as making it mandatory.

The thing is that criminals often don't think they will get caught, and they tend to blame others for their predicament. (It's not universal, and not just criminals who do this) Two reasons why harsher sentences aren't deterrents to crime. The reality is that you have limited resources, and have to prioritize what you do. Since you aren't going to eliminate drug use, "safe" zones compartmentalize the problem and reduce risk to others with minimal use of those limited resources. Drunk driving puts others at risk - not just the driver of one car. And logistically this is a non-starter, since you don't have roads you can devote to such an enterprise. The actual action communities/establishments have taken is encouraging groups to have a designated driver and offer free cab/Uber/Lyft rides on nights when drinking is widespread, such as New Year's Eve

Diffraction effects from the support structure inside the telescope https://www.universetoday.com/155062/wondering-about-the-6-rays-coming-out-of-jwsts-test-image-heres-why-they-happen/ https://www.quora.com/What-will-the-diffraction-spikes-on-stars-imaged-by-the-James-Webb-Space-Telescope-look-like#

No, the justices don’t put anything into the Constitution. An enumerated right is one listed in the document. An enumerated right. Freedom of speech. There’s a flip side to this, because the Constitution grants powers to the government. If the government isn’t empowered to restrict you in some way, you have that right, OR the state has some power that limits the right. That’s one of the ambiguities.

No, rights are inherent. They are recognized by such decisions. The amendment says rights exist that even if not listed. How is that circular?

But we actually can “go back in time” for measurements because of the finite speed of light. Light from distant sources are a record of interactions that took place millions or billions of years ago.

The numbers are rounded by a fair bit. 400 nm is actually 750 THz and 800 nm is 375 THz.

Circular reasoning. You assume an attribute and conclude that God has that attribute.

One of the reactions here was your faulty logic, so that’s not the same.

When it comes to the response of the eye, optical effects are additive. https://www.xrite.com/blog/additive-subtractive-color-models There are ways of getting the sum frequency or difference frequency, using nonlinear materials. In general it's called four-wave mixing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-wave_mixing#Sum_and_Difference_frequency_generation But this isn't happening with these lights

The 9th amendment says unenumerated rights exist. That's not an interpretation of it. That's literally what it says, though stated in the style of the time.

And they are advancing a conjecture that it is not, so the statement has little meaning. A. I'm asking for a number. You gave a number for c B. How can it be the same as the rate of change of c? Ԑₒ and c are both in the equation for α. If α varies as c does, then Ԑₒ can't be changing. But c depends on Ԑₒand you've said that μ0 is a constant. This is mathematically inconsistent. C. Presenting the same information over and over again isn't going to be fruitful. Repeating is not clarification. You just said that the units of μ0 are H/m, which is correct. Thus it is not a dimensionless constant. If c varies as 7.25 mm/s per year, then the fractional change is 2.4 x 10^-11 per year. If α is changing at this rate, we have a problem, "In 2008, Rosenband et al. used the frequency ratio of Al+ and Hg+ in single-ion optical atomic clocks to place a very stringent constraint on the present-time temporal variation of α, namely α̇/α = (−1.6±2.3)×10−17 per year. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Present_rate_of_change So your prediction is contradicted by experimental measurement.

Will you answer the question? It's not obvious that it should vary as the same rate at c. (I assume you mean fractional rate). Since α depends on both c and Ԑₒit should not vary at the same rate as c. IOW, it's not as simple as taking 7.25 mm/s and dividing it by c, since that would imply that Ԑₒis not varying. If it's not, you need to show why all the variation is in the magnetic permeability. Is it a constant?

So what can countries that can't afford the infrastructure do to all of the sudden afford the infrastructure? Broken or outdated systems still do not mean that "The sewer system depends on rain water flushing the waste to the ocean." This is just moving the goalposts.

That's not an actual rebuttal. You disprove a conjecture by showing that it's not consistent with what we observe.

Where does the reservoir go in a city for multi-unit dwellings or business properties? (i.e. you don't have a yard for a barrel) Where? A lot of places treat the sewage rather than dump it in the ocean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewage_treatment#By_country

! Moderator Note Split. Your conjecture should only be discussed in its own thread. What happens to the fine structure constant? How quickly does that vary? If c varies, what is the variation of the permittivity and permeability of free space? c=1/√(ε0μ0)

The precedent from the previous ruling would have to be ignored, and the notion that rights don't exist unless enumerated, unless strongly rooted in U.S. history and tradition, ignores the 9th amendment. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. I don't see his caveat listed. For a long time only white men had rights, so this skews things. He's stating that if, long ago, you could deny people rights, you still can, because it's tradition.

If the Constitution is being ignored, then amending it won't fix that particular problem, though it would address the notion that the rights don't explicitly exist, since they will be called out.

Alito apparently ignored the 9th amendment, and laws can be overturned. The GOP is already discussing a national ban if they get back in power.

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