MigL

Maybe you should stop buying cheap Chinese irony meters that give false positives. My Candian made one only goes off occasionally, when reading posts like the above. Or possibly, you should recalibrate your meter by reading the first couple of pages to see what people's concerns actually were. It could be, that this whole time, you've been needlessly replacing meters, and tilting at imaginary windmills. From my third post on this topic ( my first two were regarding accusations and lack of discussion ), March of 2021 ... Ironic, isn't it ?

I'm glad it only took 35 pages to convince you that new classification criteria are needed, as male and female don't work, no matter what you identify as. Keeping only male/ female without separate option for trans athletes, would disadvantage most all cis women, and you'r not misogynistic, are you ?

I've resisted re-joining this discussion because it has gotten silly. We started off comparing physical performance advantags/disadvantages of trans athletes to cis male/female athletes, and are now comparing the performance of horses, and whether it's affectd by the gender of the rider. There are many sports which depend much more on skill than physical prowess; horse racing/riding may be one of them. Some sports require a combination of the two. Professional golf, for example, allows women to tee off from a shorter distance, as they don't have the physical strength for the longer drives that men have. Yet, in every other part of the game, where skill becomes more and more dominant as you get to the putt, women are equal, if not superior to men. Weightlifting and swimming, on the other hand, are examples of sports where physical prowess is much more dominant than skill. And those are the kinds of sports where some of us felt the need for separate divisions for men who transition to women, as that would outclass cis women and negatively impact their participation in those sports. Separate classifications for trans athletes are not needed or required for all sports, just those heavily dependent on physical prowess. So let's keep the discussion realistic. ( and no, INow, it has nothing to do with the way you pee 😄 )

How does this pertain to the OP, the legality of alchol. Seems to be more of a political commentary; and off topic.

Probably not many members ( other than a few obvious wing-nuts ), but quite a few are bought and paid for. Quiite a few would probably do the right thing, but it would cost them their office/election. So much easier to re-pay the NRA's support with citizen's lives. ( am I being too cynical now ? )

I wish it had been three years since th last shooting incident,unfortunately, these happen on a regular basis, and nothing ever changes. Buffalo is a little close to home, and I knw quite a few decent people there in my younger years; the 'crazy' has spread all over.

Simplest explanation possble ... Residual Electromagnetic forces.

Energy is related to the configuration of a system, and defined as the ability to do work, What then, is the meaning of 'negative energy' ?

Kind of cloudy in southern Ontario. Meh; it's only a shadow.

When you see the results of months, if not years, of work, to achieve something that most thought was impossible, you just can't help getting excited.

I only gave examples of non-German beers brewed in the German tradition. And I'm not that old.

That was Huxley ? I would have thought it was Morpheus, or the Architect, describing the Matrix.

Never tried VB, but I did like Fosters when it was first imported, Beecee. It was crisp and refreshing, which I like since I drink beer to quench thirst ( not get drunk ). When it became a local brew, it tasted like all the other Canadian beer, and I stopped buying it. Same happened with Carlsberg. I tend to like beers brewed in the German tradition ( Heineken, Stella, Kronenberg, or even Tsing Tao ), not beers that require 'chewing'; sorry Stringy.

That sets a good example, and is commendable. I have done the same for my nephew on a couple of occasions. In Canada we have the Young Offender's Act, where young people, learning to navigate their way along the many paths of life, are not charged as adults for many crimes. People, especially the young, are allowed to learn from their mistakes. And as has been mentioned, my attitude is make it legal, if socity wishes to do so and there is a demonstrable harm reduction, or keep it illegal. But it is then illegal everywhere, as Safe Injection Sites would presumably only reduce harm in specific locations

No. I think if you knowingly do something illegal, you are accepting of the known punishment you may get. You don't get a special place where you can be illegal without the consequences. If society deems that illegal act, to become legal, then you can do it wherever you want. So by all means, if you can get the country to legalize possession of 'hard' drugs, then you can have safe injection sites. Otherwise you are simply providing an area whhere the illegal is considered legal ( ? ).; which is nonsensical. Maybe that was a bad example, as it has nothing to do with drugs. Alcohol is a drug. Every year drunk drivers kill and injure not just themselves but other drivers and pedestrians. And after years of education, fines, driving suspensions and jail time, they continue to drive drunk. Obviously it is not working. I would suggest 'special' roads, only for drunk driving use, such that other innocent drivers and pedestrians are not killed or injured; just the drunk drivers. This would also be a harm reduction strategy, would it not ? I haven't seen any 'safe drunk driving roads' pop up in Vancouver or Toronto like the safe injection sites have.

A law has to be judged unconstitutional to be struck down. A decision can be changed when Supreme Court Justices change their minds. ( as Justice Alito's leaked draft demonstrates )

Noted.

Maybe I'm just not too clear on the US Constitution ... It states that unenumerated rights exist. Granted. But until those rights are 'numerated' by SC Justices, no one know what they are. The SC may decide tomorrow that everyone has the right to have pink hair. That right existed previously, as per the Constitution,, but was unenumerated, so no one knew they had that right. Now that the Justices have decided, everyone knows we have that right. So who made that decision ? ( not law, decision; and that's what I'm on about )

You should have a special area where you can give your sweetheart 50 lbs of chioccolate, and avoid prosecution when she overdoses on choccolate. ( but what a way to go 😄 ) In Canada Cannabis has been de-criminalized, but we have Safe Injection Sites where you can do illegal activities in a 'special' area. Until, or ever, legalized, that is still an illegal activity. These bad choices people make are not excused in other cases not involving drug use. Why is 'moral outrage' and punishment justified if I make bad choices, other than illegal drug use, that harm people and society ? There would be less deaths of innocent bystanders if gang members were allowed to have their shoot-outs in 'special' areas, without retribution. I'm looking at the issueentirely from the viewpoint of reducing public health risks. Sounds kind of silly, doesn't it ? I know. And that is what I'm ranting against. So, if society deems such actions and use legal, then there would be no need for Safe Injection Sites. Until then, you are advocating a 'specal' place to do specific illegal actions/uses that you may favor ( but certainly not other actions/uses a mentioned above ), even though society doesn't consider them legal. Did I forget anyone ?

This thread has certainlly wondered about a bit. From alcohol legality, to other recreational drug use, onto addictions, including social media/technology, and even to Government enabling. The simple reason alcohol is still legal ( the OP ) is that it is preferred by a vast majority of people. And 'majority rules' is one one criteria for social laws. ( whether it should or shouldn't be, is a different matter ) And here I go again ... This all sounds very noble and 'woke', but people make bad decisions in life, like not stopping at a Stop sign, and killing someone. Or having a gun while involved in an argument, and shooting someone. Or ordering your armed forces to invade a sovereign country for the purpose of de-Nazification. Yet, for cases where illegal drug ( and alcohol ) use lead to criminal activity, and violent crimes against society, there should be no stigma/prejuudice or retribution ? We should just give up trying to stop it, give them a hug, and send them on their merry way, without the right to react to their actions ? I'm sorry, but if something is known to be illegal, until it is actually made legal by society you don't get a 'special' area where you can do it with no repercussions.

Moreso for some than others. Some of us are legends in our own minds.

And these unenumerated , or unwritten, rights exist because of previous Supreme Court decisions that favored rights such as the right to travel, within the states, the right to privacy, autonomy, dignty, and yes, even the right to abortion. Isn't that circular ?

Unlike the goldfish' s situation, that is the only perspective there is.

As Markus explained, classical GR is deterministic. Knowing all initial conditions allows the prediction of future conditions, like a clockwork. And present conditions can be extrapolated back into the past. Quantum effects throw a 'wrench' into the classical works. For a BH this would be most evident near the predicted singularity, and at the boundary we call the event horizon, where information loss difficulties arise.

That's not true. GR does not allow for a universal reference frame, so it would not be consistant with the latter case.