In any legal case, there are fundamental principals of justice that trump all others. In this case, the fundamental principal is: "People who engage in foolish behavior are 100% responsible for the outcome of that behavior." Not 90%, not 99%. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Driving with a cup of hot coffee between your legs definitely constitutes foolish behavior. Nothing you mention above overrides that fundamental principal.
Therefore, MacDonald's owed her nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada.
The fact that the jury was convinced otherwise says more about the sad state of jury selection than anything else.
A "slit" is merely a region of the blocking plate that is transparent to photons of a particular wavelength. You can cover one slit with anything that is transparent to that wavelength, and you will still get a wave pattern. On the other hand, if you cover one of the slits with anything that is opaque to that wavelength, you will get a pattern that looks like a stream of individual photons again. It doesn't matter if slit is blocked with a "detector" or anything else, as long as it absorbs the photons.
For example, you can cover one slit with a piece of glass. If the photons are in the visible-light range, you will still get a "wavelike" pattern. But, if the photons are in the UV range, you won't, since glass is largely opaque to UV. That's why the double-slit experiment only works reliably in a vacuum, since a vacuum is transparent to all wavelengths.
None of this has anything to do with detection, observation, uncertainty or philosophy. Just opacity.
All the electricity where I live is produced by hydroelectric: no air pollution and no greenhouse gases.
And, with improved nuclear systems coming available in the near future, pollution-free hydrogen production will be feasible in places where only fossil-fuels are used now.
It is only "testable" if someone comes up with a test that says: 1. if the data values are these, then this
supports ID 2. but if the data values are these, then
this refutes ID
Has anyone come up with such a test? No. Therefore ID is not a scientific theory.
When Bill Clinton was the president,
$50 US was worth $73 Canadian. Now, since
that monkey in the Oval Office killed
the US economy, $50 US is only worth
$60.70 Canadian. See http://www.mises.org/images3/Chart1476.gif
Religious fundamentalism, whether Christian (anti-science education in US schools),
Jewish (violent Israeli settlers),
Moslem (suicide bombers), Hindu (political assasinations) or Sikh (airline bombings), is the
biggest threat the civilised world faces today.
And, its getting worse.
Science is trying to make everybody agree on the same reality.
No, science doesn't "try" to do anything.
Science is an abstraction - a way of searching
out new knowledge based on a foundation of
experimentally-verified results.
Any scientist who tries to "make everybody agree on the same reality" (and I've never
met one who did) is
displaying a lack of wisdom.
Countless billions of people have been rescued
from a short life of hunger and disease
by the use of the scientific method.
Religion has done nothing of the kind.
You yourself were rescued from a life of not
being a computer nerd by science. While a
mixed blessing to be sure, it beats staring
at the backside of an ox for 16 hours a day.
precisely defines what "intelligent design" is,
including a thorough description of
how "intelligent designing" works, and
describes a set of experimental measurements
that
says "if these values are found, then
intelligent design is real, but if they are
not found, intelligent design is not real"
then ID might have something to do with science.
Otherwise, it is pure theology.
I'm a Canadian who worked in the US for
ten years. I had the best insurance you could
get - but still had to pay a fortune in
"copayments" (translation: you are covered,
but still have to pay big bucks every time
you see a doctor). Furthermore, there were
so many fine-print exceptions and limits that
you could be bankrupted even if you
have insurance.
Finally, just after a major hospital stay, the
insurance company went bankrupt,
leaving me holding the bag.
For all the problems in the U.S., it is a far, far, better place to live that Canada (which, admitedly is a lot better than many other places, just noticibly worse than the U.S.).
Americans should kiss the ground they walk on.
It sure sounds like you miss Canada, and are
trying to talk yourself into believing
otherwise. Not that I blame you.
To bad the cellulitis spread to your brain.
40% of Americans have NO health care. If they
get sick, they stay sick, or die. That's
what will happen to you and your family when
your job is outsourced to China.
Then you can crawl back to Montreal.
Wrong: "SD" stands for Standard Definition (720X480), which is what all conventional
televion systems use in North America.
However, a CRT-based TV is fundamentally
an analog device, so depending on the quality
of the tv and input signal, you could get
anything from a crisp 720X480 (a high-end studio
monitor connected directly to a high-end
studio camera) down to about 40X30 (a crap
channel with poor reception on a
$10 second-hand TV).
I believe they use HD-VHS recorders (like
the JVC HM-DH30000) that record from satellites
and output to component. I'm not sure how
they convert that to digital, though.
Another import problem with the POV of this article:
there's a world of difference between "conclusions of scientific experiments" and "conclusions of scientific experiments translated into everyday English by clueless newspaper reporters".
I flat out don't believe that any research paper ever concluded that "When employees get chilly, they are not working to their full potential."
As for this whole science thing: is the earth flat? The greatest scientists used to think that as well.
Oh yeah? Name one. As for "intelligent design", that is a philosophical/theological concept that has nothing to do with science. If you can't test it, it ain't science.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but he is the CURRENT president to not fund the levee upgrades, and that is where the buck stops.
In any legal case, there are fundamental principals of justice that trump all others.
In this case, the fundamental principal is:
"People who engage in foolish behavior
are 100% responsible for the outcome of that
behavior." Not 90%, not 99%.
ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.
Driving with a cup of hot coffee between your legs definitely constitutes foolish behavior.
Nothing you mention above overrides that fundamental principal.
Therefore, MacDonald's owed her nothing.
Zero. Zip. Nada.
The fact that the jury was convinced otherwise
says more about the sad state of
jury selection than anything else.
This is all a misconception.
A "slit" is merely a region of the blocking
plate that is transparent to photons of a
particular wavelength. You can cover one slit
with anything that is transparent to that
wavelength, and you will still get a
wave pattern. On the other hand, if you cover
one of the slits with anything that is
opaque to that wavelength, you will get a
pattern that looks like a stream of individual
photons again. It doesn't matter if slit is
blocked with a "detector" or anything else,
as long as it absorbs the photons.
For example, you can cover one slit with a
piece of glass. If the photons are in the
visible-light range, you will still get a
"wavelike" pattern. But, if the photons are
in the UV range, you won't, since glass is
largely opaque to UV. That's why the
double-slit experiment only works
reliably in a vacuum, since a vacuum is
transparent to all wavelengths.
None of this has anything to do with
detection, observation, uncertainty or
philosophy. Just opacity.
Just switching to compact-flourescent lights,
and having better insulation in your house
can have a significant effect on energy
consumption.
There's nothing stupid in the sentiment: just
in the reader.
Fool indeed!
All the electricity where I live is
produced by hydroelectric: no air pollution
and no greenhouse gases.
And, with improved nuclear systems coming
available in the near future, pollution-free
hydrogen production will be feasible in
places where only fossil-fuels are used now.
It is only "testable" if someone comes up
with a test that says:
1. if the data values are these, then this
supports ID
2. but if the data values are these, then
this refutes ID
Has anyone come up with such a test?
No.
Therefore ID is not a scientific theory.
When Bill Clinton was the president, $50 US was worth $73 Canadian.
Now, since that monkey in the Oval Office killed the US economy, $50 US is only worth $60.70 Canadian.
See http://www.mises.org/images3/Chart1476.gif
How is it withdrawl, when I only have one or two smokes every couple months?
I have met many "occasional" smokers like you. They were all in denial.
One or two smokes a month? One or two packs a day, more likely.
Right on.
Religious fundamentalism, whether Christian (anti-science education in US schools), Jewish (violent Israeli settlers), Moslem (suicide bombers), Hindu (political assasinations) or Sikh (airline bombings), is the biggest threat the civilised world faces today.
And, its getting worse.
Then I made calimari. It was delicious.
Science is trying to make everybody agree on the same reality.
No, science doesn't "try" to do anything.
Science is an abstraction - a way of searching out new knowledge based on a foundation of experimentally-verified results.
Any scientist who tries to "make everybody agree on the same reality" (and I've never met one who did) is displaying a lack of wisdom.
Countless billions of people have been rescued from a short life of hunger and disease by the use of the scientific method. Religion has done nothing of the kind. You yourself were rescued from a life of not being a computer nerd by science. While a mixed blessing to be sure, it beats staring at the backside of an ox for 16 hours a day.
- precisely defines what "intelligent design" is,
including a thorough description of
how "intelligent designing" works, and
- describes a set of experimental measurements
that
says "if these values are found, then
intelligent design is real, but if they are
not found, intelligent design is not real"
then ID might have something to do with science. Otherwise, it is pure theology.I'm a Canadian who worked in the US for ten years. I had the best insurance you could get - but still had to pay a fortune in "copayments" (translation: you are covered, but still have to pay big bucks every time you see a doctor). Furthermore, there were so many fine-print exceptions and limits that you could be bankrupted even if you have insurance.
Finally, just after a major hospital stay, the insurance company went bankrupt, leaving me holding the bag.
For all the problems in the U.S., it is a far, far, better place to live that Canada (which, admitedly is a lot better than many other places, just noticibly worse than the U.S.). Americans should kiss the ground they walk on.
It sure sounds like you miss Canada, and are trying to talk yourself into believing otherwise. Not that I blame you.
To bad the cellulitis spread to your brain.
40% of Americans have NO health care. If they get sick, they stay sick, or die.
That's what will happen to you and your family when your job is outsourced to China.
Then you can crawl back to Montreal.
Wrong: "SD" stands for Standard Definition (720X480), which is what all conventional televion systems use in North America. However, a CRT-based TV is fundamentally an analog device, so depending on the quality of the tv and input signal, you could get anything from a crisp 720X480 (a high-end studio monitor connected directly to a high-end studio camera) down to about 40X30 (a crap channel with poor reception on a $10 second-hand TV).
I believe they use HD-VHS recorders (like the JVC HM-DH30000) that record from satellites and output to component. I'm not sure how they convert that to digital, though.
Yaar! There be a Britney CD off the port bow. Man the guns!
"Social Sciences" is an oxymoron.
Another import problem with the POV of this article: there's a world of difference between "conclusions of scientific experiments" and "conclusions of scientific experiments translated into everyday English by clueless newspaper reporters".
I flat out don't believe that any research paper ever concluded that "When employees get chilly, they are not working to their full potential."
As for this whole science thing: is the earth flat? The greatest scientists used to think that as well.
Oh yeah? Name one.
As for "intelligent design", that is a philosophical/theological concept that has nothing to do with science.
If you can't test it, it ain't science.
I'll tell you why: they were a bunch of dumb-ass crackers. Just like you.
Isn't that what the T1000 is make of?
Oh, you were told that. Then it must be true.
Science doesn't demand anything of you. But it does make demands on those who identify themselves as being "scientific".