Before you make a testimony as a witness in a courtroom, you are told to tell the truth, the only truth and nothing but the truth.
Well, that begs for the question: What exactly is the truth?
I think truth is a personal interpretation. A statement is made in a neutral format and whether it is the truth or a lie depends completely upon the interpretation of the individual viewing upon that. Superstitions are the best example. 'It is bad luck to open an umbrella indoors'. That statement is neither true or false in it's original claim. It is only true for those that believes in it's truth and as false for those that believe it is so.
A statement will become the truth or a lie.
So in court, the truth is unknown. It is based on the interpretation by the jury and judge on the 'facts' presented, that we then make a conclusion. It is through this process that we make errors, sending innocent people behind bars and letting the genuinely guilty ones free.
But it begs for the statement in question:
"A truth is always the truth even if nobody believes it. A lie is always a lie even if everyone believes it."
Now what about you?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
A sword and shield.
What happens when an immovable object meets and unstoppable force?
I will attempt to answer this question my way.
This question is first of all assuming that both an unstoppable force and an immovable object exists as ideas outside the physical realm.
By using the analogy of a solid wall as well as Newton's law of motions: "Every action as an opposite and equal reaction", "A force will either be still or continuous until another force acts upon it", I will attempt to address the dilemma.
A wall. When you push against it, you are applying a force against the wall, and the wall does not budge. In that case, there should be an opposite force acting against your force. However, once you let go, the wall does not push back, resulting in neutral force. So this in turn suggests that there is no opposite force acting against your force when you push against the wall, or if there is, what is it?
This would suggest that not every action has an opposite and equal reaction, simply the action or force is not great enough to break the solid compounds of the object.
In this case, when the unstoppable force hits the immovable object, the force will be stopped, resulting in a great explosion. A force can only be stopped if another force acts upon it and in this case, there is no opposing force acting against the unstoppable force, only the object which halters the force so in this case, since there is no force acting against it from the object, it must be stronger than the force acting on it. So the object will remain intact while the force will be ceased.
I will attempt to answer this question my way.
This question is first of all assuming that both an unstoppable force and an immovable object exists as ideas outside the physical realm.
By using the analogy of a solid wall as well as Newton's law of motions: "Every action as an opposite and equal reaction", "A force will either be still or continuous until another force acts upon it", I will attempt to address the dilemma.
A wall. When you push against it, you are applying a force against the wall, and the wall does not budge. In that case, there should be an opposite force acting against your force. However, once you let go, the wall does not push back, resulting in neutral force. So this in turn suggests that there is no opposite force acting against your force when you push against the wall, or if there is, what is it?
This would suggest that not every action has an opposite and equal reaction, simply the action or force is not great enough to break the solid compounds of the object.
In this case, when the unstoppable force hits the immovable object, the force will be stopped, resulting in a great explosion. A force can only be stopped if another force acts upon it and in this case, there is no opposing force acting against the unstoppable force, only the object which halters the force so in this case, since there is no force acting against it from the object, it must be stronger than the force acting on it. So the object will remain intact while the force will be ceased.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
A legal loophole?
Okay, so we all know about copyright laws and how you may not distribute another artist(s) work or part of their work to the general public because it is under copyright and you cannot claim legal ownership. Even if you acknowledge the artist, you can still be breaking the law.
However, it has come to my attention that many shows, especially in Australia, use songs from another artist as they are entering a break. I don't see any reference to the song or artist anywhere and I wonder, do they have priority over the general public in terms of distributing music? Have they received consent from the record label companies? I find it quite absurd.
So is it a legal loophole or are they entitled to use the music or sections of it?
However, it has come to my attention that many shows, especially in Australia, use songs from another artist as they are entering a break. I don't see any reference to the song or artist anywhere and I wonder, do they have priority over the general public in terms of distributing music? Have they received consent from the record label companies? I find it quite absurd.
So is it a legal loophole or are they entitled to use the music or sections of it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)