Judge Rules S&W Can Be Sued

[Ben Lamb]

I just thought of a great marketing plan. Baby seal moccasins with a black rifle logo.
For a gentle start for a lazy morning for Tactical Chad.

Put some MOLLE attachments on them and a pocket for a pistol mag and you got yerself a tiger by the tail, son!

 

[Gerald Martin]

Do you think a bayonet attachment on the coffee mug would be popular?
I already have a brand name picked for your mugs. “Skulls of Your Enemies.”

 

[VikingsGuy]

I don't know where you got that number, but I am going to call bullshit on that. I am a synthetic organic chemist and while I have run into issues of not replicating the odd result, it has been nowhere near the 60% of the stuff I have tried from the literature. When I run into those issues I get pretty livid as it is a waste of my time, so it isn't like I am making light of the issue. But if I am running a reaction out of the literature I expect it to work, and my success rate is significantly higher than 40%. These literature procedures are almost entirely published by graduate students and postdocs who are by their definition trainees and are less skilled than scientists in industry, meaning you would expect more mistakes. If anything I have had more issues replicating experiments from patents published by industry, but I think that is because the lawyers get their hands on it before it gets published.

If you do want to call out particular fields, more biological fields have more issues with replication. I think quality control is more challenging in those fields, and the nature of their work means they have to very carefully design the controls of their experiments. But these issues aren't really applicable to lots of physical science disciplines.

And I am a biochemist. First, I need to correct my own numbers (irony alert) - the general sense I have gotten from a fair amount of reading on this topic is 60% ok/40% not, but then when I thumbed the phone reply with the thought phrased in the negative I failed to reverse the ratio. I intended to express 40% fail. I also include p-hacking and other statistics gaming in this generalized view (which also hurts "softer" sciences more than "hard"). I also agree as you move from physics to sociology the problem gets worse.

Because of its practical human importance, and due to a small number of dogged early "whistleblowers," the majority of the published work on this problem has been done in medical and medical relevant fields (biochem, molbio, pharma, cell bio, medical device, etc). But as folks in other "harder" disciplines take up this question they aren't liking what they are seeing. Time will tell as more of this comes out. Here is just a small list identifying the problem (as noted much of the early work is med-related). https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/circresaha.114.303819. (lots of examples of less than 20% reproducibility)

I have spent a lifetime in the sciences. In my role, it only matters if it works and I see a lot that doesn't (and of course a lot that does). If we extended the discussion to the broader point (@Ben Lamb's reference to "science" of alcoholism) - too much of what people think science says is wrong. And that doesn't make me anti-science. Science is by definition the art of proving things wrong and eliminating reasonable hypotheses, theories, and estimations. When small bits of this messy process are prematurely taken out of the science realm that the risk comes almost inevitable. I would guess across all fields claiming to use the scientific method, between lack of reproducibility, poor experimental design, misleading use of statistics, unsupported conclusions, extremely small or narrow sample base, overly broad conclusions, and mischaracterized conclusions by those "reporting" the science, less than 35% of what gets called out as "science says" in the public dialog is actually supportable upon careful review. But yes, for organic chemistry maybe that number is 70% (when you consider more than mere replication).

And this is not new. Just walk through the last 500 years of human knowledge (the era of the scientific method). How much that was scientifically "true" at one point was later reversed, corrected, or materially modified? It is a humbling journey - even for "hard" sciences. Do you ever wonder what firm held scientific beliefs we hold "true" today will be laughed at by our great-grandchildren? Why do we believe that 2021 is the magic date that makes us certain we have the one final correct answer? Much like Churchill said about democracy, science is the most error-prone tool for the development of knowledge except for all others that have been tried.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Do you think a bayonet attachment on the coffee mug would be popular?
I already have a brand name picked for your mugs. “Skulls of Your Enemies.”

I'll figure that out.

But I do demand that @JohnCushman be our sole spokesmodel. We'll all be ten-thousandaires soon enough!

 

[Gerald Martin]

I'll figure that out.

But I do demand that @JohnCushman be our sole spokesmodel. We'll all be ten-thousandaires soon enough!

With @Schaaf as director of bumper sticker marketing.

I propose a field meeting of company principals and those interested in the future of outdoor tactical gear and clothing in the spring of ‘22.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Step into a law enforcement officer's shoes...

Amazing how society has this inherent fear yet...

Not a knock on you VG in any manner... taking the content many share yet can not seem to fathom the 1,000,000+ sworn LEO's who run towards gun shots, etc while others run away.

There was a show that offered news anchors with a few volunteering, placed them into virtual shoot / don't shoot scenarios .

A very different perspective when they reflected on the cell phone whipped out of a pocket in a quick fraction of a second, etc. For a 20+ year attempt to retire while protecting the innocent from the evil...

I agree that it is a nearly impossible situation when you have 2 seconds to make a life or death choice (LEO or otherwise). My post did not say otherwise, so not sure why you think I did. I LOVE great LEOs and understand they have a nearly impossible job.

But if you are referring to some other thread in the past, I do have less sympathy for shooting blind in a dark alley, shooting a driver as they follow your instructions, or suffocating a person over the course of 9 minutes and 49 seconds. (all true stories from MN). These LEOs have to go.

 

[Ben Lamb]

With @Schaaf as director of bumper sticker marketing.

I propose a field meeting of company principals and those interested in the future of outdoor tactical gear and clothing in the spring of ‘22.

So we've got Groucho, Harpo, Chico & Gummo. Just need a Schleppo and we've got the Marx Bros. Mug & Cloud Yelling Corporation ready to float.

 

[Sytes]

VG, I made it clear (least I thought I did), it was not a knock on you in any manner. What you shared, LEO's are subjected to face frequently with guns drawn during a felony stop or otherwise.

Your description is a great reminder to the masses of the (far from 2 seconds) split second decision making as described in Graham v Conner.

 

[Irrelevant]

And I am a biochemist.

Wait, you mean I've been taking legal advice from a scientist? I'm shocked!

 

[Schaaf]

With @Schaaf as director of bumper sticker marketing.

I propose a field meeting of company principals and those interested in the future of outdoor tactical gear and clothing in the spring of ‘22.

You know what this tactical coffee cup needs? A kindergarten-level humor sticker from Schaff’s Stickers and a red dot sight.

 

[noharleyyet]

You know what this tactical coffee cup needs? A kindergarten-level humor sticker from Schaff’s Stickers and a red dot sight.View attachment 188445

...half full

 

[4ohSick]

And I am a biochemist. First, I need to correct my own numbers (irony alert) - the general sense I have gotten from a fair amount of reading on this topic is 60% ok/40% not, but then when I thumbed the phone reply with the thought phrased in the negative I failed to reverse the ratio. I intended to express 40% fail. I also include p-hacking and other statistics gaming in this generalized view (which also hurts "softer" sciences more than "hard"). I also agree as you move from physics to sociology the problem gets worse.

Because of its practical human importance, and due to a small number of dogged early "whistleblowers," the majority of the published work on this problem has been done in medical and medical relevant fields (biochem, molbio, pharma, cell bio, medical device, etc). But as folks in other "harder" disciplines take up this question they aren't liking what they are seeing. Time will tell as more of this comes out. Here is just a small list identifying the problem (as noted much of the early work is med-related). https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/circresaha.114.303819. (lots of examples of less than 20% reproducibility)

I have spent a lifetime in the sciences. In my role, it only matters if it works and I see a lot that doesn't (and of course a lot that does). If we extended the discussion to the broader point (@Ben Lamb's reference to "science" of alcoholism) - too much of what people think science says is wrong. And that doesn't make me anti-science. Science is by definition the art of proving things wrong and eliminating reasonable hypotheses, theories, and estimations. When small bits of this messy process are prematurely taken out of the science realm that the risk comes almost inevitable. I would guess across all fields claiming to use the scientific method, between lack of reproducibility, poor experimental design, misleading use of statistics, unsupported conclusions, extremely small or narrow sample base, overly broad conclusions, and mischaracterized conclusions by those "reporting" the science, less than 35% of what gets called out as "science says" in the public dialog is actually supportable upon careful review. But yes, for organic chemistry maybe that number is 70% (when you consider more than mere replication).

And this is not new. Just walk through the last 500 years of human knowledge (the era of the scientific method). How much that was scientifically "true" at one point was later reversed, corrected, or materially modified? It is a humbling journey - even for "hard" sciences. Do you ever wonder what firm held scientific beliefs we hold "true" today will be laughed at by our great-grandchildren? Why do we believe that 2021 is the magic date that makes us certain we have the one final correct answer? Much like Churchill said about democracy, science is the most error-prone tool for the development of knowledge except for all others that have been tried.

The problem is that there is no ethical way to test some of these things following the scientific method. Even if you could actually control all the other environmental variables, taking a group of youngsters and giving half a steady supply of alcohol to determine the risk of future dependency issues would be morally reprehensible. In the absence of a good study to prove causation, we're left to do what we can to interpret correlation, but ignoring it entirely because it isn't true science can't be the only course.

It all comes down to engineering (says the engineer). Recognize the scientific inputs and make "engineering judgement."

 

[DouglasR]

Wait, you mean I've been taking legal advice from a scientist? I'm shocked!

@VikingsGuy is a man of many hats.

 

[noharleyyet]

@VikingsGuy is a man of many hats.
View attachment 188447View attachment 188448View attachment 188449

forgot one...the purist of science

 

[VikingsGuy]

Wait, you mean I've been taking legal advice from a scientist? I'm shocked!

Lobbyist, scientist, lawyer, commercial - I have wandering feet and am easily bored.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The problem is that there is no ethical way to test some of these things following the scientific method. Even if you could actually control all the other environmental variables, taking a group of youngsters and giving half a steady supply of alcohol to determine the risk of future dependency issues would be morally reprehensible. In the absence of a good study to prove causation, we're left to do what we can to interpret correlation, but ignoring it entirely because it isn't true science can't be the only course.

It all comes down to engineering (says the engineer). Recognize the scientific inputs and make "engineering judgement."

I agree completely.