MigL

OK. So you only consider it a problem when Republicans stack the Supreme Court ? Please elaborate.

It would be best, Ten oz, if we didn't err at all. ( just wishing )

But he has been partisan in the past. Stringy. And his recent tirade against Democrats, and the Clintons in particular, can't have escaped your notice.

That quote applies to the wave nature inherent in Quantum Mechanics. You are trying to apply it to relativity, which is a purely classical theory. IE not applicable.

Stored potential energy does not depend on any other factors other than height and mass. The bridge is supported/elevated, i.e. at height, so, if it loses its support, there is a huge exchange of potential energy for kinetic, i.e. it drops to the ground. With the resulting large energy exchange when it hits the ground. The raindrop is purely incidental. You would get the same result with no input of energy. Just step off the roof of a building. you'll still make quite an impact when you hit the ground.

The recent nomination of B Kavaaugh to the Supreme Court highlights and magnifies the problem with the highest court in the land. Judges are appointed to the Supreme Court by a Government, when the opportunity arises, as an extension of the government's ideology. Republicans nominate extremely conservative judges, while Democrats nominate progressive ( or activist, depending on your viewpoint ) judges and since appointments are for life, the Supreme Court can be right or left leaning for many changes of Government. Once a majority is established in the Supreme Court, laws passed by a government are either 'rubber stamped' by the Court, or modified ( even rendered invalid ) by the Court, depending on whether the Court leans Republican or Democrat. In effect, the laws of the land are decided, not by elected politicians ( and by extension the populace because we vote politicians in and out of office ), but by appointed, unaccountable judges. We have a similar problem here in Canada, but it is much more well-behaved ( like all Canadians ), and nowhere near as partisan as it is in the US. Do you consider this a problem ? Or only a problem hen the Court is stacked against your ideology ? And is there a solution to this problem, such as election or limited terms of Supreme Court Judges ?

People are starting to argue with reputation points. I see more and more negatives, on both sides, even for valid points which deserve deliberation. It is a very sensitive subject but, I have come to know that everyone involved in this discussion is a sensible person. Discussion leads to understanding, so if you want your viewpoint understood, discuss it. Don't neg rep opposing views, they're just trying to make their viewpoint understood.

As much as we all love to hate D Trump, Rangerx, this thread is not about him. Or even about B Kavanough specifically. ( he was just a convenient example in the news ) It is about anyone , male or female, accused of sexual assault, and how far are we reasonably willing to believe the accusations of the victim, WITHOUT actual evidence/proof. Justice is not statistical. If 19 people have been acquitted, the twentieth is not automatically guilty because of the 1 in 20 statistic. Statistics are fine for data collection, but are in no way indicative of guilt or innocence. Each case should be decided on the merits of the evidence/facts. That is the basis of due process and the foundation of our justice system.

Let's see... Black men are convicted at a higher rate than white men, so if you're a black man protesting his innocence should you be given the benefit of the doubt ? Of course, anything else would be racist. Men are convicted of sexual assault at a much higher rate than women, so if you're a man protesting his innocence, should you be given the benefit of the doubt ? By saying the woman should be believed at all times, you are saying that the man shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt. Or the presumed innocence until proven guilty. That seems like a valid comparison to me. ( I'm 59 yrs old, if we're comparing ages ) Edit: Thanks Zap, I wasn't aware the appointment was so 'final'. What if he's charged, convicted and goes to jail ?

A lot of developments in the day I've been away... But maybe someone more knowledgeable than I am with the American Judicial and Political system can explain something to me. If C Blasey Ford has B Kavanough charged with attempted rape, she makes her case by providing the evidence/facts, and he is convicted ( possibly doing jail time ), can he keep his Supreme Court seat ? I would think he is at least disbarred, meaning he can no longer be a judge. So, why are the allegations not being brought to the criminal justice system ? Not doing so gives the impression that, now that the nomination has been confirmed, there is no chance ( or evidence ? ) of securing a conviction against B Kavanaugh. Her name and story has already been put through the public domain grinder ( against her wishes ), and people who believe her should be urging her to file criminal charges. Edit: Sorry Ten oz, just saw your request while I was reading back... I did not say planted evidence, which as you say, is a criminal act. I suggested she 'planted disinformation', something most politicians are very good at.

How would it look if someone he nominated to the Supreme Court has to quit because they are convicted and jailed ? I have stated numerous times that these charges should be brought to criminal court, where they can be vigorously defended and prosecuted to 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Certainly not through the internet, press or other public domain sources like social media. And certainly not through partisan venues like the afore-mentioned hearings.

The 'default' position has always been innocent until proven guilty. ( welcome to the party, I like butting heads with you ) The Democrats certainly can force an investigation, Ten oz. All that needs to be done is the filing of criminal charges against B Kavanough. Even D Trump would withdraw the nomination of someone who is possibly going to jail.

" Oh yeah, but look at what D Trump said..." Really, you're gonna use what D Trump says/does to justify your argument ? I don't recall him being included in the OP, nor bat-shit crazy being justification for anything. Look, I don't really care for the political games; and that is all the hearings were, as there was no attempt to get at the truth. But an alleged crime was committed. And one of these two people will have their lives altered significantly and unjustly, because politicians are squabbling over fact finding and the extent of the investigation. Do a proper investigation, even if it means filing criminal charges. That will certainly stop the nomination process from being rammed through by Republicans. Once you arrive at the truth, one of them should be in jail, and the other won't be a victim anymore. Edit: See what you just did, Phi ? You stated that if you claim you're innocent with no evidence, you should NOT be believed. That is the exact opposite of due process, where you are innocent until there is evidence to prove you aren't.

I've often wondered why no-one has tried to introduce cyanobacteria, not to Mars, but to Venus. A small amount, to see if they can survive, even as an experiment on Earth.. Then, after the introduction to Venus, evolve and start changing the atmospheric composition. Who knows, in a couple of million years, Venus might resemble an Edgar Rice Burrows novel

I don't blame C Blasey Ford who, according to Ten oz's account, took the polygraph test on Aug 7th. This is over two weeks after contacting Senator D Feinstein and over a month after contacting A Eshoo ( who referred her to D Feinstein ) I would think she was advised on how to best make her accusations public. IOW so as to have the most impact. I would assume C Blasey Ford would know about the uselessness of a lie detector test, but would be 'advised' that it would make a great impact on the public at large. From what I've read, D Feinstein isn't above planting disinformation. There are very few, if any, politicians who haven't contributed to this mess.

I can't believe I'm encouraging you... Was it EXACTLY 46.000000 % and 54.000000 % ? Keep in mind millions of people voted. So yes, there would be quite a few decimal places. ( this little side argument is probably destined for the trash )

You forgot the decimal on your 8 points, Ten oz. Yes I'm being sarcastic that you are quibbling over this when you know I provided rough figures.

And the same data indicates that, if SOME people did not interpret it that way, Swansont, SOME OTHERS did.

The point I was making Rangerx, is that if the FBI investigation is curtailed, we may never know who actually committed a crime as C Blasey Ford has no interest in further pursuing the matter and filing charges. And unlike you, I don't assign guilt or innocence based on appearances, only evidence and facts. Except for a few people, the partisanship evidenced by these hearings is disgusting, and proves nothing. And as Sting Junky pointed out, the numbers of Americans choosing sides are nearly equal, because of the polarization of their political system. IOW, its all politics, not justice. Half of American VOTERS voted for D Trump. They wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the ass. ( fixed it, are you happy now ? ) And while we are at it, what does belief or disbelief have to do with due process. Due process means keeping an open mind until all evidence and facts are presented beyond a reasonable doubt, before convicting someone. Why this rush to assume the worst about a person based on partisan hearings ? ( hell, even I've made that mistake; based on appearances, I believe C Blasey Ford and dislike B Kavanough based on his political leanings )

Really, Rangerx ? Half the country voted for D Trump. They wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the ass.

So now what ? This isn't simply about the Supreme Court nomination anymore. Half of the country believes he's a drunken sexual predator while the other half thinks she's a lying vindictive b*tch ? And nothing gets settled ? Nobody wants answers ? No-one cares ? At least one of the two is a victim of a crime. What about justice ?

Wow. M curie won the Physics Nobel in 1903. And the Chemistry Nobel in 1911 ?

I didn't give you the -1, BeeCee. But if we gave people a chance and were not so quick to assume the worst, some of those newbies might stick around. We were all newbies at one time, and I know I asked silly questions.

How is unjustified generalizations about a certain demographic any different than unjust generalizations about poster's intentions ? The OP was before the above exchange, so one can't be used to justify the other. Let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they actually cross the line.

A Canadian ( U of Waterloo, originally from Guelph ) woman, Donna Strickland, is only the third woman ever ( first in 1903, second was back in 1963 ) to be awarded the Nobel prize in Physics for her work in high energy lasers. The methods she helped develop while doing her PhD in the 80s, 'chirped pulse amplification', reconciles the requirements for short pulses and high power ( without blowing up the laser ). Especially significant for me; she is my age , so we probably attended ( different ) Universities at the same time. Glad that the Nobel Committee is recognizing women's accomplishments in Physics. ( but do they need to wait 60 yrs in between ? )