Russell McMahon wrote:

>> And not likely to change anytime soon  :)
> 
> Which is, I think, a pretty reasonable observation - the more so 
> because of the appended smiley.

And I think that the appended smiley could mean that my observation was
right on the mark.

Was it serious? Why then the smiley? Was it not serious? Then what exactly
did it mean?


> The "not likely" puts it into the class of a comment on probability and
> I'd be surprised if anyone with any scientific rigour (and that's NOT an
> attempt to slang anyone)(and certainly not the person who critiqued the
> statement) would feel that, while the laws of thermodynamics MAY all be
> 'broken' at any moment, the probability of it happening is "rather low".

"Feel" and "probability" and "science" in one sentence... wow :)

I think if you want to talk about probability with any scientific rigour,
there's simply no probability for this. Not a low one, not a high one --
none. 

So talking about one in this context doesn't seem to be science, and (to
me) not much more than mere marketing. Which is unluckily how most
decisions for which a "scientific" excuse can be found are explained. 

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist