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." ' "
Obviously at least one Russian citizen has wholeheartedly embraced the US style of democracy.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
If the Russian court agrees to let this case proceed, it opens the door for all kinds of inane, utterly frivolous lawsuits from astrologers, witch doctors, faith healers, and every other kind of kook out there who wants to make a quick buck by accusing actual scientists of violating some crackpot principle. I'm not an objectivist, but I have to say that Ayn Rand must be rolling over in her grave.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Oh, and she didn't see this coming?
It appears the inhabitants of Tempel-1 are lawsuit-happy as well.
>> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"
I wish NASA would be as cynical as I am in their response. "Are you going to cry about it?" Then proceed to blow chunks out of 10 or 15 more comets, to show them who is boss.
Home of the midwest loser - www.say-10.net
That settles it! I'm going ahead with my lawsuit against slashdot. I've never gotten a first post, and its fucked up my chi.
.
NASA should charge this nut for deftly moving the comet a milimeter from its original course, thus saving his love-life from complete misery.
OTOH, I'm glad to see the Russians finally learning to do things the American Way (i.e., sue the pants off everyone).
--LWM
Is this why she's suing? Because, thanks to NASA, she doesn't have any morals, and therefore is absolutely fine with the idea of frivolous lawsuits?
Is this what happened to Jeffrey Vernon Merkey too?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
The woman is suing the government for depriving her of her ability to make an income in her current profession. Her allegation is that the government (through NASA) has fundamentally shifted the course of celestial bodies with the impact and that she is entitled to monetary recompense.
This is so similar to how the record companies are fighting tooth and nail to stop people from changing the RIAA's business model.
Is someone entitled to make a living? Should the government be in the business of putting people out of work?
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
A few years ago a psychic in florida sued a MRI facility. Her claim was that the MRI had robbed her of her psychic abilities.
You infidel aggressors are simply not content to bomb afghanistan and iraq!
American aggressors are now bombing innocent comets!
What do you think you will find, WMD or oil in Tempel I? Stupid USA!
NASA should go back to doing what it does best, making fake moon landings!
You may be persecuted by American space agencies today, dear Libra. However, despite your "moral sufferings" you will be able to gain great fortune from friends, family, and coworkers. Embrace your lawyers, Libra, for they will save you from the unnatural entropy of the universe caused by space probe crashes!
If this goes through I will counter sue for one billion dollars. The damage to my karma this will cause will be HUGE. I mean it. I will be so mad at this woman that my aura will never be the same. I could end up coming back as a rat or worse fan of Ayn Rand or some other low form of life.
What amount of money would be enough to make up for this eternal setback? A billion would be a good start.
On a more reasonable note. You can sue anyone for anything. It is nothing but a stunt.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
She earlier told the paper that the experiment would "deform her horoscope."
NASA: Okay - how's about this - we spend all the money required to create a new horoscope, which incorporates the changes we made to the "fabric of the universe", and has just as much predictive power as your old horoscope.
Total price: $0.
Studying astronomy instead of astrology: Priceless.
For bullshit predictions based on the position of the planets at the moment of your birth, there's Madame Marina Bai. For everything else there's NASA.
Education is the silver bullet.
I'm certainly interested in seeing such a case appear in court. Usually, charlatans such as these take care to avoid independent scrutiny and measurability. To let it appear before court would place her in the position of having to prove the had any abilities to begin with... and that's going to work against her the most. At least, I'm guessing the judge is going to be a lot more emotionally independent than her clients who probably have an emotional interest in believing in her abilities.
Besides, she has 1 million dollars waiting for her if she can prove she has paranormal abilities
see a Text Widget
The whole Zodiac system was made up 2000 years ago, on the idea that your 'sign' was the one that the sun rose into on your birthday. At the present time, the Earth has precessed something like 15 degrees, so the sun actually rises 1 sign away from where it originally did. (thanks Bill Nye!)
Fuck these goddamn superstitious idiots anyway, we left the caves a long time ago.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Defense Lawyer: Your honour, if you let this case proceed our court systems will be flooded with inane frivolous lawsuits, and the number of lawyers in our country will rise exponentially. As proof I would like to enter into Evident Exhibit A, the United States legal system.
Judge: Case Dismissed!
The REAL reason they popped that comet, was to improve the Feng-shui of the local celestial neighborhood.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
She should have seen this turn of events coming.
--
make install -not war
Should this case not receive the honest critic of its validity that it should get, I can see Russian courts becoming basically ignored on the world scale. Why bother defending yourself if you can't win? You might as well lose and just let them try to collect.
I do security
People who believe in astrology don't do so because of logic.
People who believe in anything that isn't objectively verifiable, do not believe because of logic. This includes religious belief, since it is, by definition, faith-based. Faith is not rational or logical- it is merely a manner in which we choose to structure our worldview.
I think its the paying customers that you should criticize for not thinking clearly, not the astrologers themselves. I confronted an "astrologer" with the same facts you mention, and she explained that's the reason she keeps up on the latst astronomy news, and why people need professionals like her, rather than try to do astrology themselves.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
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
In an unprecedented prank, NASA engineers sent capsule with astrologer and her lawyer towards Mercury. Her parents sued over the suffering endured by her daughter while sharing the tiny capsule with a lawyer. "Ok, I must admit that part was not nice", said a nerdy NASA engineer. Oddly enough, this "astral trip" was part of a previous settlement...
Notice something rather distinctive about that comet?
It's covered in impact craters already
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Surrounded by atheist barbarians who want to force their children into gay marriages, perform mandatory abortions on their pregnant daughters and burn all bibles in the libraries. You can never stop watching for those barbarians, else you will wake up to find 24 hours porn programming on all TV stations. With a bare-breasted Janet Jackson doing the weather.
If she'd sued the Russian space agency, she'd already be in the gulag. Going after NASA? Now, that has potential.
Coming soon: All your spacecraft are belong to us!
Tolerance brought 'creation science' to our schools. While everyone get's all tolerant and PC, the religous right has consolidated a tremendous amount of power. I doubt there are many religions that wouldn't legislate their beliefs into law, given a chance. They are now getting lots of chances.
Tolerance has to end somewhere. For me, we've pretty much reached that point. If people want to believe in the supernatural (astrology, gods, devils, telekinesis, etc.) fine. When they get public with it, I mean to belittle them. The definition of supernatural I'm using is Oxford sense 1.
I've tried tolerance for half a century. That's all done.
You can't apply logic to faith, because logic is a form of faith. Logic will always supercede other faiths if they're analyzed logically, just like logic will always be superceded by religion, if explored religiously.
Whether you fundamentally believe that logic means something or if you fundamentally belive that your existance means something is just as much a leap of faith.
Religion and logic don't necessarily disclude one another, but for those who belive in both, the order of which supercedes which might determine whether they're agnostic or if they're religious.
Moving around on the earth's surface will shift its centre of gravity. This in turn will move its gravitational field, which will subtly alter the orbits of everything in the universe. So unless you also want to be sued by this crazy babushka, I suggest that you stay very very still. come to think of it, even breathing would be a bad idea.
Question: If man can screw it up, what kind of god/power/higher knowledge is she serving anyway? Not too powerful, eh?
Hmm... What do you call it when you are warned that your coffee is dangerously hot by the state safety officials but you decide to go ahead and do it anyway because it allows you to squeeze out more juice per grind?
Negligence maybe?
So, on average each customer burned himself 70 times on the same cup of coffee? Damn...
^]:wq!^M
IN COMMUNIST RUSSIA, THE COMMET SMASHES-
Dear god, I can't go through with it. The one place where the stupid joke might actually belong, too.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
>> 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.
Precariously balance a cup of liquid in your lap while driving a car. The odds of you spilling are so disproportionately high, that one can rightfully claim you are endeavoring to spill.
In the MacDonald's case, the plaintiff was found by the jury to be partially at fault. MacDonalds did serve thier coffee too hot, but the plaintiff was an idiot to balance the coffee in her lap.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
> Religion and logic don't necessarily disclude one another, but for those who belive in both, the order
> of which supercedes which might determine whether they're agnostic or if they're religious.
Religion may be logical, but it is based on flawed principles. It is very easy to show the problems with the basic principles, and the rest comes crumbling down. I am referring to religion having any bearing on the physical world, e.g. creationism. Leave it in the spiritual realm where it belongs and you won't have any problems.
jfs
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
The coffee spilled while she was removing the lid, as a passenger in a stopped car, in an attempt to add cream and sugar -- something very common among coffee drinkers. While many jurors did not originally feel that the case was warranted, after seeing the evidence, they were particularly struck by McDonald's callousness in the case. The plaintiff received third-degree burns on 6% of her body as a consequence of the spilled coffee and initally requested compensation for her medical bills, which for such extensive burns are significant. McDonald's knew that the risk existed, as they served their coffee very hot. They'd seen cases of this happening before (from first to third degree burns), settling out of court but not changing their policies.
As a long-time coffee drinker, I frequently have a cup of coffee in the car. It spills. But third-degree burns are not part of any rational person's expectations of the consequences of spilled coffee. If you're going to serve something that carries that sort of danger -- one beyond normal expectations for the product -- to a place where it's well-known that spills will occur, at the very least there should be clear warnings. Maybe you disagree, but twelve people who actually listed to all the facts (and were not predisposed one way or the other) didn't.
Of course, now you often can't get McDonald's coffee that's hot enough and they put warnings on their cups, which isn't necessary (though to do otherwise may make them guilty of not protecting their stockholders). So it seems silly in retrospect, as the beverage is just as hot as you'd expect, but with warnings. Still, warnings never hurt anyone.