Astrologer Sues NASA Over Comet Probe 999
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." ' "
Her parents should be proud... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Her parents should be proud... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Her parents should be proud... (Score:5, Funny)
I predict great disapointment in her future
Re:Her parents should be proud... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Her parents should be proud... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Her parents should be proud... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Her parents should be proud... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Her parents should be proud... (Score:4, Insightful)
Joke:
*Something silly to enjoy
*Having a laugh at someone elses expense
*Having a laugh even though it may offend something slightly.
Taking things too seriously:
*Reading a joke and taking serious offense and getting all riled up.
*Not enjoying something silly just to make people laugh and be happy
*General Asshattery
Lighten up dude... sheesh.
Re:Her parents should be proud... (Score:5, Funny)
NEYT! (Score:5, Funny)
Dear god, I can't go through with it. The one place where the stupid joke might actually belong, too.
Re:NEYT! (Score:4, Funny)
Because in Soviet Russia, punchline beats YOU!
Yeah...almost doesn't seem worth it...*sigh*
The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Funny)
Here we go again... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:McDonald's lawsuit was completely frivolous (Score:5, Insightful)
Negligence maybe?
Re:McDonald's lawsuit was completely frivolous (Score:5, Funny)
So, on average each customer burned himself 70 times on the same cup of coffee? Damn...
Re:McDonald's lawsuit was completely frivolous (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:McDonald's lawsuit was completely frivolous (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
On the other hand, it would also show very clearly that there's absolutely no evidence that such crackpot theories are valid. Think about it - this woman stands to gain $300 million if she can show that her particular crackpot theory is valid. If the court case proceeds, and she can't show that astrology works - given some pretty damn big incentive - then perhaps less people will be inclined to believe in astrology.
By the way, what's the deciding factor between whether or not something is a) a crackpot theory, b) a superstition, or c) a religion? Seems to me, the amount of believers and money involved has something to do with it.
A crackpot theory is typically believed by one or two people. Astrology is a cottage industry. And Christianity has a billion believers and stupid amounts of money.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, not a chance. The publicity would just legitimize astrology. When the suit was finally decided in NASA's favor, believers would just spin it that NASA had better lawyers.
People who believe in astrology don't do so because of logic. They cling to the hope that the universe is not just a giant machine, that they are somehow made unique among humans by their keen intelligence, inside knowledge, and special placement in it.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:3, Insightful)
The very nature of astrology implies that the universe is a giant machine and that it determines your attributes. The placements of planets A, B, and C indicate that I have attribute X. While the belief is illogical, the motivation for it appears to be a fe
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Funny)
[1] What departing trains? I don't know.
Re:A point of clarification (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:A point of clarification (Score:5, Informative)
>> Like quarks ... where's the objective verification
In the Large Hadron Collider you will find the answer. Here [unipi.it] or here [mppmu.mpg.de] or a more wider search [google.ca]
>>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 [ichep02.nl]. We'll know if it's just theory or not in a few years, so hold your breath! Even more! The Higgs boson [uct.ac.za] 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.
Re:A point of clarification (Score:4, Insightful)
> 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
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, sort of like slashdotters ;-)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Informative)
ID does not make any testable predictions (how do you test for a supreme being?) and as a result cannot be considered a theory. In fact, those who support ID go out of their way to show the flaws of Darwins theory but never show why ID is better.
It's not about logic. It's about the scientific process which requires facts to validate or invalidate a theory. No such proof is ever given by the ID side.
This whole argument is useless since Darwins theory has been shown to be the correct one thanks to both horses and birds. In both cases these animals evolved from other animals. In the case of horses the fossil evidence (see, there's that proof I'm talking about) shows that horses were not always horses. They are descended from creatures roughly the size of a large dog and can in no way be considered a horse.
As far as birds are concerned the proof, while not absolute, is all but confirmed especially in light of this article [sciencemag.org] (which was rejected for submission) which describes how the bone of a T. Rex was examined and found to have a similar structure to only one living relative: female birds who had just ovulated.
Combine the above information with the overall skeletal structure of birds with those of T. Rex (and other dinosaurs), throw in archaeopteryx [berkeley.edu] and you have another link in the chain.
Remember, nowhere does Darwin say that all creatures must have evolved from other forms. He only says that creatures may evolve. Since both horses, and to a large extent, birds have been shown to have evolved from other creatures, the theory has been proven to be correct. Even leaving out birds gives one such proof of the theory and one is all you need.
The issue isn't about using logic, it's about people wanting to believe that somehow we're unique. That there is a reason for our existence. The idea that we're born, live and die just like the billions of other creatures on this planet is too much for their egos to take. They need to find a reason for their existence. If that reason is religion, so be it. Just don't try to masquerade religion for science.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Interesting)
On a side note, I have to leave Texas before my children get in to school. I already had my "linux" fish ripped off my car once since I moved here.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, you realize that a Linux fish is essentially a mobile insult against their religious expression which
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think that vandalizing someone else's property is generally considered to be a Constitutionally (or morally) defended form of expression.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll appoligize (as a christian) on behalf of whoever ripped off your fish, as that was a very "un-christian" act.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Interesting)
-aiabx
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad understanding.
Evolution theories are NOT creation theories. Whether current scientific theories of the evolutionary processes are complete and/or 100% correct is one thing. Feeling the need to say that, because the science is incomplete, creation dogmas might be valid is quite another thing.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm finding there are 2 types of Texans, one I dislike a lot, and the other I like a lot. The neo-con lunatic is the kind I can't abide, but I'm finding these are not natives, they seem to be imported. The other kind of Texan is the gun toting, fuck government, don't tax me, if-I-want-to-kill-myself-being-stupid-let-me kind. I like them a lot and I did not find this in either California or anywhere in the north east.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Funny)
Look at your trunk lid again. No fish, right? Look closely. See that salamander? Yes, that one, next to the keyhole. The fish was not stolen. It merely evolved.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Heres a hint. Making up numbers does not legitimize your point. In my experience, but then im from northern florida, the vast majority of the time its someone trying their best to convince me that I am going to hell because im an athiest. IF it were just a matter of "live and let live", that would be FINE. However, the religious zealots are most of the problem (again, from MY experience). I cant remember ever hearing of atheists assaulting religous people's person or property because they had a god sticker on it. However, I see and hear the reverse all the time. Happened to my wife (back when she was just my girlfriend). She had a pro Wicca bumper sticker and some god nut busted her windshield and wrote nasty stuff on her car with a magic marker, stuff along the lines that they should bring back witch burning. Kind and wonderful people, they are.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:3, Informative)
Remember, they're a persucuted minority (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Remember, they're a persucuted minority (Score:4, Funny)
and this is a bad thing because...?
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad thing about sick minds is that they can pervert any belief system. That's not the fault of the belief system, that's the fault of the minds.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Insightful)
To fix this, you should have a law liek Canada's where the loser pays the legal bills for both sides in a law suit. This ensure frivilous law suits have to think twice. While a suit with a legitimate chance of suceeding won't be unduly impeded.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Informative)
Pure loser-pays systems are no better than the status quo, because then small individuals daren't ever risk suing large organizations, because if they lose, they may end up owing millions in legal fees (since the big company can spend that much without breaking a sweat). You might say, "Well if they lose, then it was obviously a frivolous lawsuit," but that's plainly not true either.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Arguably, I have more proof that the events of Star Trek or Lord of the Rings happened than anything in the bible. But I'd be "crazy" to believe one of these things...
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Insightful)
IIRC quiet a few incidents described in the bible have been confirmed by other historical sources. I'm not talking about walking on water or plagues of locust, but wars, conquests, the names of rulers etc. By automatically dismissing everything in the bible as false, you show that you haven't critically evaluated it, which puts you in the same boat as those who assume everything in it is true.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Insightful)
And your logic is what? We would all be better off if we stopped brushing/stopped using condoms?
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientology, my friend, sciencefictionology...
Maybe it isn't wildly successfull among the people, but it seems to attract som wildly successfull people.
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Informative)
Keep in mind that they have a special "Celebrity" branch whose members are treated to a completely different experience than the regular rank & file...
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
James Randi did an experiment where he handed out horoscopes to a class of (college) students and had them rate how closely they matched reality. Most of the students said the horoscopes were accurate. He then had them swap horoscopes, and they found out that they all had the exact same horoscope. Now, how could ONE horoscope match everyone? Because it was filled with generalities and vague statements, that's how. The students themselves filled in the details where they were missing, and sub-consciously remembered the 'hits' more than the 'misses'.
Now, without knowing the exact circumstances behind your case, I can't tell you for sure that's what happened. Only you can, if you choose to look at what happened objectively.
I've seen people healed by faith healers,
Really? If you can prove that, you might win $1,000,000! Go to www.randi.org for details.
I've met psychics who can vividly describe situations and people that later become part of my life.
I sense a... man, or maybe a woman. He is tall, maybe short. BLond hair, maybe brown or black. You'll like this person, or maybe hate them.
How'd I do??
And before you start talking about "cold reading", I have a solid background in psychology, and did not give these people a chance to meet me or be exposed to me to cold read me.
You may "have a solid background in psychology", but you don't understand what 'cold reading' is. Cold reading does NOT depend on meeting the victim before hand, or even knowing anything about them before hand. That would be 'hot reading'.
From Wikipedia: "Generally, the cold reader will make a series of vague statements, will observe the subject's reactions, and then will refine the original statements according to those reactions"..."even without prior knowledge of a person, a psychic could still obtain a great deal of his subject's history by carefully analysing his or her look and other background information, such as gender, religion, race, education level and place of origin."
So, let's apply Occams Razor. Either there are people in this world who can 'speak to spirits', 'read minds', and have other paranormal powers (but choose to eke out a living reading palms instead of, say, getting the winnign lottery numbers). OR, there are people in this world who are frauds. Fakers. Con men.
WHich is more likely?
Re:The Russian court has got see reason, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet a significant proportion of the students said that the horoscope matched them. This is the entire point - that it wasn't a genuine horoscope, but people believed it fit them. It was written in horoscope style - full of vague waffle that could fit just about anyone. And of course people will generally remember the hits and ignore the misses [skeptics.org.nz]. It's just human nature - and professional con-artists are very well aware of how to take advantage of human nature.
Wow. Just.... wow.
And you seriously just accept that? The notion that, for a very small expenditure of time on their part, they could walk away with one million dollars.... one million dollars that they could donate to any charity in the world (if they weren't interested in the money themselves)... and yet they say they're not interested?
Bullshit. Sheer undiluted bullshit.
Oh, and by the way - I can turn invisible and fly through the air. I just don't feel like demonstrating it to anyone, not even for money. You see, money's not that important to me, so that's why I make my living working an eight-to-six office job. So... what do you mean, I'm talking crap?? Don't be so close-minded!
Just out of interest, why don't you ask your psychic pals exactly how much money would have to be offered to make it worth their while? Ten million? A hundred million? A billion? Ten billion? If they just keep saying that "it's not worth their effort"... at some point you just have to realise that it's bullshit.
If I could earn (cue Dr Evil voice) "one meeeellion dollars" simply by demonstrating an ability I possess, you can bloody well be certain that I'd do it.
The reason your "psychic" acquaintances don't take up the Randi challenge is because they know it's incredibly unlikely that they'd pass, and it'd be an embarrassing waste of time for them... though I suspect the embarrassment factor would be the biggest component.
Pot, meet kettle.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick.
If your psychic acquaintances had any genuine abilities, they shouldn't disappear just because they're faced with a sceptic. The reality is that very few "psychics" have enough faith in their own abilities to put them to a genuine test.
Somebody needs to step out of the middle ages... (Score:3)
How good an astrologer is she? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, and she didn't see this coming?
That's not the only lawsuit (Score:5, Funny)
NASA's next probe (Score:5, Funny)
Waaa. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Waaa. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry. If that's what she honestly said (and meant), she's a loony.
1: It's not easy to land on a comet or asteroid. The gravity's quite weak, and not regular either. Especially as you don't know the composition or internal structure.
2: It's not like the comet was going to stay pristine. Comets travel through very harsh environments. It's unlikely that if we went back to Tempel I on its next orbit that we'd see the same surface features. There's no "preservation" really needed.
3: The impactor created an explosion equivalent to about 5 tons of TNT. That would've taken a lot of drilling, and it still would've only given localized information.
4: Finally, and most importantly, it's simply ludicrous to believe that this mission could've been replaced with one with a controlled, long duration landing probe for nearly equivalent money. We know very little about the surface of a comet. It's entirely possible had we tried to design a lander, we would've sent it there and then said "well, um, we found out all of its instruments are useless on comets!"
The other comment I've heard, from a friend who studies all kinds of space things, is that he hoped NASA picked their comet-target right, because they probably changed its trajectory in minute ways
Do the math. Any change in its orbit is unmeasurable. Comets are still very big - Tempel 1 is in the 10^13 kg range. The impactor was 370 kg. Relative velocity was 10 km/s. That means you're talking about a delta-V in the neighborhood of a tenth of a micron per second.
It's just completely and totally pointless.
That's the part I find funny (Score:4, Informative)
Notice something rather distinctive about that comet?
It's covered in impact craters already
Friend who studies all kind of space things? (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that friend who "studies all kind of space things" to study some logic and probabilities too. Since all c
She should have been able to predict it (Score:3, Interesting)
I predict she will lose!
Don't claim to tell me my future when you can't even tell me what I had for breakfast. Wanna really impress me? Buy the winning lottery ticket. Over. And Over. And Over.
Well then (Score:5, Funny)
Bit silly (Score:4, Funny)
OTOH, I'm glad to see the Russians finally learning to do things the American Way (i.e., sue the pants off everyone).
--LWM
Re:Bit silly (Score:3, Funny)
No, it only means we're going to get more russian spam like this:
I should sue them, too (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
I know, I know (raises hand) (Score:3, Funny)
Far reaching aspects of this case (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Far reaching aspects of this case (Score:5, Interesting)
The woman is suing the government for depriving her of her ability to make an income in her current profession.
Bullshit.
Changing the course of a celestial body in no way deprives this person of her livelihood. She's supposed to read the movements of the stars, right? Ok, so this was one of them. We, humans, products of the universe, make changes to it just like stars and planets exert their own forces on comets. An astrologer should be reading the movements, not complaining about them being made.
Now, naturally, since she's just making this shit up anyway, what it really amounts to is an increase in her ability to make income; she can call all her clients up and say "You must come in immediately for a new reading, as NASA has just fucked up the heavens." and dupe these poor sons of bitches yet again. And if anybody thinks this lady is up to anything but a (successful) publicity stunt, you're way off base.
Also, in more direct conflict of the parent statement:
1)TFA doesn't say she's suing them for loss-of-business damages, but "moral sufferings" ....you just made that up.
2)300 million? How long would it have taken her to earn that much? Because that's what the damages would be determined by if the cause of action was what you claim. It isn't.
Cost analysis (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Cost analysis (Score:3, Interesting)
But will she use it to make the repairs, or spend it on vodka, lottery tickets and incense?
Not the first (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not the first (Score:5, Funny)
> of her psychic abilities.
According to her lawyer, "She had no idea this would happen."
Chris Mattern
Violent americans up to no good again! (Score:4, Funny)
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!
Your Daily Horoscope (Score:5, Funny)
Counter sue. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Deform? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Let it proceed... (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides, she has 1 million dollars waiting for her if she can prove she has paranormal abilities [randi.org]
Re:Let it proceed... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Let it proceed... (Score:3, Interesting)
With other words: in order for her to prove her claim, she has to prove that astrology from now on is false and that all astrologers following the same method will fail to reach "true" conclusions. It actually seems in the interest of other astrologers fo
Astrologers are morons anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck these goddamn superstitious idiots anyway, we left the caves a long time ago.
Re:Astrologers are morons anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only this, but for some parts of some months the Sun is in non-Zodiac constellations. I have a cousin that's an Ophiuchan...
Re:Astrologers are morons anyway (Score:5, Informative)
Job Security- sounds smart to me! (Score:4, Interesting)
sure, why not. (Score:3, Insightful)
Defense (Score:3, Funny)
Judge: Case Dismissed!
NASA's dark secret... (Score:5, Funny)
In the Stars (Score:5, Funny)
A test of the Russian Courts (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Breaking News (Score:5, Funny)
This makes no sense (Score:3, Funny)
Why don't people use the established channels the way they were intended to be used anymore???
Re:Lets fire lawyers at the rock next time? (Score:3, Funny)
A good start.
The best thing about Lwayer jokes? Easily adaptable to any circumstance;-)
Re:Lets fire lawyers at the rock next time? (Score:5, Insightful)