Slashdot Mirror
Astrologer Sues NASA Over Comet Probe
0110011001110101 writes "NASA's mission that sent a space probe smashing into a comet raised more than cosmic dust -- it also brought a lawsuit from a Russian astrologer. 'Bai is seeking damages totaling $300 million -- the approximate equivalent of the mission's cost -- for her "moral sufferings," Izvestia said, citing her lawyer Alexander Molokhov. She earlier told the paper that the experiment would "deform her horoscope." ' "
And i do believe they will let the case proceed, as the judge recommended that the astrologer and her defendant find a specialist who would be able to tell whether the experiment caused and increased threat of comet impact. It seems that they are trying to spin the case into a demonstration against the US "solving all problems, scientific ones included, with bombs." (quoting the astrologer herself) Yeah, so it might be absurd, but it seems that in foreign politics, everything goes for the Russians.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
Yes. I live in KS and the media royally screwed up reporting on what really happened. The Board of Education simply stated that teachers are "allowed" to offer alternatives to evolution. They were never forced to do so and evolution was never removed from the curriculum. In fact, the ruling had little affect outside of allowing teachers to critique evolution if they so chose.
A modified table is here. I wonder if I can sue newspapers for discrimination because they don't include my starsign in their predictions.
Here are some of the facts involved in the famous McDonald's coffee lawsuit. That particular lawsuit was not an example of a frivolous lawsuit; there are plenty of others, but that isn't one.
Liberty in your lifetime
Keep in mind that they have a special "Celebrity" branch whose members are treated to a completely different experience than the regular rank & file...
>> Like quarks ... where's the objective verification
In the Large Hadron Collider you will find the answer. Here or here or a more wider search
>>What about the hadron boot-strap? Branes?
Not sure what you mean about boot-strap, but as for the Hadron family, look for..."Large Hadron Collider"
You may not SEE them, but evidences are conclusive enough. When experiences match theory closely, it holds proof of existence.
>Branes
Branes..ah! Branes...Wait for the next version of the LHC. We'll know if it's just theory or not in a few years, so hold your breath! Even more! The Higgs boson might give up to the LHC and show up at last (he's the one supposedly responsible for giving its mass to a particle - so it's somewhat a big deal). And the nice thing is that, since it's theory (again), we'll soon be fixed on wherever it exists or not. If not, other theories will try to explain mass and will be tested. Until we find out.
>>I think we take a lot on faith without realising it. Much of that is based on someone elses faith too!
That is where your mistake is. Science is not faith-based but fact-based. Faith has no room in the scientific process. Confidence in one's experiments or theory is only confidence and has to be tested to be considered valid.
>>And I don't see Occam's razor as being a logical method.
The Occam's razor is not a method for conducting science, it is a simple thought and a guidance as to where to look at: the most simplest explanation is the first you should consider. It assumes (generally rightfully) that nature takes the shortest paths. As do humans. But again, it is not a method - at all.