h a l f b a k e r yIt might be better to just get another gerbil.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Set up and Appeal Court for those who feel they have suffered unjustly from the application or operation of the laws of Physics, or Nature in general. The Appeal court would not be allowed to change the laws (only a legislature can do that), but it could order compensation to be given to those who have
been wronged.
Exhibit 1: This sort of thing should be allowed
http://www.youtube....watch?v=40H47Z_eOKE
[Dub, Nov 13 2010]
[link]
|
| |
Suing god doesn't work. People have tried it. You might even win, but how do you get paid? |
|
| |
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. |
|
| |
There's nothing to do with God here, far as I can see. If 7/8 wanted to sue for Acts of God, I imagine those would be fairly well covered by existing "criminal damage" legislation in most countries. If I burn your house down, you can have me prosecuted; if God burns your house down, well, bringing the bugger to trial might be a bit difficult, but, hey we got Milosevic, so you never know... maybe one day we'll get that big genocidal maniac in the sky. (Sorry, just playing devil's advocate, here.) Anyhoo, the real culprit would be Sod, not God. It's his Law that generally covers the unjust operation of reality with respect to individuals, if I recall correctly. Your honour. |
|
| |
I think we'd also need a Philosophy Appeal Court for those who have suffered from the effects of logic. |
|
| |
who do I sue to recover all my missing socks? |
|
| |
Lubbit: How do we know there isn't ? If there was, how would it know if it were in session or not ? How would it take evidence, or if it were real or not ? How could you find someone with an objective viewpoint to act as a judge ? What would prevent the defendant from declaring that the court was a figment of his imagination, and defying the court to prove otherwise ?? |
|
| |
No, we don't think so..... |
|
| |
<H. Guide> We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty. </H. Guide.> |
|
| |
So...can we repeal Ohm's Law? |
|
| |
A variation on the suggested appeals court might be acceptable. For example, if a Mad Scientst suggests a wild notion, and Seniority-Possessing Famous Scientist says, "Bah! Humbug!", well, the court might be able to decide if the latter was speaking more from opinion than from fact, and thus give the wild notion a more fair chance. Likely enough, it will still be an incorrect wild notion, but there HAVE been more than a few cases where the wild ideas should have faced less resistance than was dished out by the entrenched Scienticrats. There is a reasonably well-known saying to the effect that Physics only makes major advances when the current generation of old scientists finally dies off -- and how do you suppose such a saying came to be? (Hmmmm....now that I've written this, I'm wondering if some other Idea around here was already about it. Oh, well.) |
|
| |
DrCurry: No, you can't repeal Ohm's Law. But you can sue for compensation if you feel you have been unjustly treated or disadvantaged by its operation. Current thinking is that there may be some resistance to the charges, however. |
|
| |
//current generation of old scientists finally dies off // |
|
| |
Care to accelerate the process with Alfredo's souped clay, Vernon? |
|
| |
Damn it! I was just about to submit a propsal to repeal some of the less helpful laws of physics.
{Linky}
[edit] Oh, and the speed limit. The Old C, Speed of Light is so passé. Oh, don't get me wrong, it was fine for the olden-days, but we've got much better roads and brakes nowadays. |
|
| |