The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – The legal Profile of Artificial Intelligence

If a person purchases a driverless car for their own use and properly maintains it, it would be unfair to fault them for any accidents when the vehicle is supposed to independently drive itself…Madeline Roe – (2019) 60 Boston College Law Review 315, 343.

Driverless cars…appear to be the way of the future. They can create efficiency, change people’s quality of life, and foster positive impacts on the environment- Ibid, 347

I would be among the first to admit that the content of this week’s column is unlikely to resonate with a majority of readers. But it cannot always be a matter of discussing ever-revolving parochial concerns while the rest of civilization forges ahead with developments to transform existence as we now know it.

There is no doubt that we live today in a “smart” world. I am reminded of this weekly at every tutorial when the discussion of a question is preceded not by a rustling of papers as it was in my days as a student, but rather by the un-pocketing or un-bagging of smart phones by the students to get on the University’s E-learning interface so as to access the relevant materials. The situation is further compounded by a Faculty policy of “paperlessness” so that no printed materials are distributed as before.

The smart phone itself is but a small drop in the ocean of current artificial intelligence however. Artificial intelligence, the ability of a machine to think, learn and perform tasks ordinarily related to human action, has expanded over the years to include robots that perform the most highly skilled tasks, driverless cars, security surveillance, and personal assistants such as Siri, Google Now, and Alexa, to name a few. Indeed, there are not many facets of life in which artificial intelligence might not be of beneficial use, be it in agriculture, banking, energy or the E-tail industry.

The increasing ubiquity of AI systems means that there is a greater likelihood of interaction with human beings. This raises issues of the legal, moral and ethical responsibility if this interaction should result in some harm being suffered by the human being. This immediately invokes a consideration of whether these systems should be treated as being endowed with a legal or other personality so as to be held responsible for such outcomes.

Two areas in which this issue comes readily to mind are those of autonomous driverless cars and surgical robots where serious physical injury or even death may be a consequence. I should disclose that my interest in this area was piqued by the research proposal of one-third year student for her independent research paper. As supervisor of that paper, I have been keen in recent weeks to familiarize myself with the existing literature in the area.

One study that has proved to be most usefully informative in this context is an article in the 2019 Boston College of Law Journal by Professor Madeline Roe of the Boston College Law School, entitled Who’s Driving That Car?: An Analysis of the Regulatory and Potential Liability Frameworks for Driverless Cars. In this piece, Professor Roe attempts to explore possible frameworks of liability for driverless cars and argues for the further regulation of these vehicles. Her hypothesis is that liability for accidents will most likely shift from the driver to the manufacturer.

Of course, these are not live issues in Barbados as yet and, given our traditional unduly conservative approach to novelty, I am not certain that they will be anytime soon either. Just look at our hostile attitude to the smart phone where we were content to highlight the ways in which it might be misused rather than its patent utility in order to justify its official prohibition in classrooms. I may be deemed an eternal pessimist, but the idea of Barbadians readily embracing autonomous driverless cars (those remotely controlled only) does not come easily to my imagination.

In her article referred to above, Professor Roe uses some court decisions on assessing the liability for the use of surgical robots as analogies for determining that for accidents caused by driverless cars. In one such case, a doctor performed a robotic prostatectomy on the claimant whose body mass index vastly exceeded that recommended for this type of surgery, with the immediate consequence of serious complications for the claimant.

The surgeon then converted the procedure to open surgery and completed it without the surgical robot. However, the claimant thereafter had a poor quality of life and eventually passed away. The manufacturer of the robot was eventually determined by the Supreme Court of Washington to be responsible for the death on the basis of product liability for its failure to warn the hospital and doctor about the risks of using what was considered to be an “unavoidably unsafe” product. In product liability cases, a manufacturer will be held strictly liable for the design or creation of a product that is deemed to be inherently unsafe when used in the manner intended.

In another case, the Kentucky Court of Appeals held a surgeon and the hospital liable to the claimant for a botched surgical robot procedure. This was on the basis of negligence or a failure by the defendant to achieve the required standard of care. Here, the court emphasized the necessity for expert testimony to assist the unschooled jury as to the required standard of medical care in the circumstances.

From this jurisprudence, the article proceeds to contrast the surgeon with extensive medical knowledge using a robot with the more general public use of driverless cars where the sole preconditions to operate them are being above a certain age and the acquisition of a licence. Yet the car is supposed to do the entirety of driving on its own. Should a licence then be required at al for the use of a driverless car? What if an emergency should arise?

The author notes that by allowing manufacturers to test-drive cars without people inside lays the foundation for not requiring a licence to be in such cars and concludes that the legislature “will have to weigh the utility of transporting people who are able to drive by themselves with the safety concern of the driverless car malfunctioning, [thereby]forcing the passenger to take the wheel”.

Another distinction between the two scenarios is that there are potentially two clear causes of human error with injury caused by a surgical robot; either that of the doctor, who makes an error during the operation by the robot (medical negligence) or that of the engineer, where the robot malfunctions (product liability). With the driverless car, who is at fault if it faces a problem that its programming does not account for? In negligence, an actor is liable for reasonably foreseeable consequences only, so clearly there would be no liability in the event of an unforeseeable event. Should a strict liability [no fault] standard be applied then? And would such a policy not lead to defensive engineering or, possibly, stasis?

Professor Roe also notes the variable of speed in the comparison. A road accident takes a few seconds only to occur and there would be little time, if any to correct mistakes made by the car, unlike during robot-assisted surgery. In conclusion, she notes the response of a new California regulation that permits the testing of driverless cars without passengers so long as they follow a series of stipulated rules relating to disengagement of the autonomous mode and the prompt reporting of nay accidents.

 

116 comments

  • Jeff

    There is a case where, not a driverless car, but a computerized car was remotely taken control of. And it is alleged that those so doing murdered the driver. How does the law account for this?

    Like

  • Jeff

    If driving conditions on the road are precarious and owner of the driveless car decides to put the car on the road and the car slides hits and kills a pedestrian walking on the sidewalk …who is at fault: the manufacturer, or the drive for the lack of better judgment?

    Like

  • @Jeff

    It will be a long time before we have to worry about driverless cars in a I’m but given the incursion of digital systems in Bim look for the introduction of smart appliances as part of the “Internet of Things” , soon your fridge will tell you when it’s time to throw out your milk or juice.

    Like

  • if you have a driver less car do you need a drivers license or just a road permit, does an adult have to be in the car with children First thing I would do is buy a 58 plymouth fury get personalized christine plates and scare the shit out of the people that go to that 24 hr bar on the gap that never stops playing dam music.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Sargeant

    Jeff was very clear in his article that AI is not a live issue for Barbados, AI is a relatively nascent stage of development and adoption. It does not mean that leaders in our society – like Jeff et al- should succumb to navel gazing and ignore the innovation that will be the future.

    Like

  • @Lexicon

    Take a few minutes and read the link embedded in the article to which Jeff referred. Read!

    On March 18, 2018, in Tempe, Arizona, Elaine Herzberg was walking her bicycle across Mill Avenue where it intersects with Curry Road.1 Fur- ther down the street, a vehicle was traveling autonomously at about forty miles per hour in a forty-five miles per hour zone.2 The vehicle struck and killed Ms. Herzberg, marking the first known pedestrian death caused by self-driving technology, despite the presence of a human safety driver at the wheel of the autonomous vehicle.3 Tempe police released a video of the safety driver distracted and without her hands hovering above the wheel as many safety drivers are instructed to do.4.

    https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3730&context=bclr

    Liked by 1 person

  • ” The overwhelming majority of car accidents that occur today are the result of driver error. Because driving and claims history play such important roles in determining auto insurance rates, self-driving car accidents will be much rarer, and likely reduce insurance rates for drivers.

    Despite the few (and sometimes tragic) stories that have appeared in the news about accidents involving driverless vehicles, they will help to eliminate driver error as a factor in future collisions. That’s going to translate into safer road conditions and lower premiums for drivers.”

    https://www.ahainsurance.ca/car-insurance/self-driving-car-accident-affect-insurance/

    Like

  • Jeff

    There is a case where, not a driverless car, but a computerized car was remotely taken control of. And it is alleged that those so doing murdered the driver. How does the law account for this?

    @ Pacha, If I am understanding your question correctly, this does not implicate the legal liability of the AI system but remains a simple matter of applying the criminal law for causing the death of a human being. Please clarify.

    Like

  • WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog

    ” First thing I would do is buy a 58 plymouth fury get personalized christine plates and scare the shit out of the people that go to that 24 hr bar on the gap that never stops playing dam music.”

    ya on vacation and want to sleep, ya will sleep long enough when ya dead…lol

    Like

  • Jeff

    If driving conditions on the road are precarious and owner of the driveless car decides to put the car on the road and the car slides hits and kills a pedestrian walking on the sidewalk …who is at fault: the manufacturer, or the drive for the lack of better judgment?

    @ Lexicon, This is a current issue depending on the legal policy adopted. If the standard is based on negligence, then the owner may well be held to be liable, depending on the state of his or her knowledge, for putting the car on the road where it might foreseeaby cause an accident. Relevant would be the “controllability” of the car in those road conditions and whether the owner was aware of the defect, if any. Of course, the policy might be to regard the driverless car as an “inherently dangerous” product and hold the manufacturer liable if the warnings are insufficient to ensure safe use.I dealt with this in the essay

    In negligence, an actor is liable for reasonably foreseeable consequences only, so clearly there would be no liability in the event of an unforeseeable event. Should a strict liability [no fault] standard be applied then? And would such a policy not lead to defensive engineering or, possibly, stasis [in development]?*

    Like

  • Mr Cumberbatch should write an article on the positive application of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE applied to Barbados political and government areana’s. AI in its present form can at least perform at a level that matches any present political or government iteration the exits in Barbados. All present Bajan governments like to push technology as problem solvers, here’s one to replace themselves.

    Ha, ha, ha…….

    Liked by 1 person

  • if you have a driverless car do you need a drivers license or just a road permit, does an adult have to be in the car with children?

    @ Lexicon, all these matters will have to be determined as a matter of jurisdictional legislative policy…implicating safety, practicability and manufacturer’s warranties.

    The author notes that by allowing manufacturers to test-drive cars without people inside lays the foundation for not requiring a licence to be in such cars and concludes that the legislature “will have to weigh the utility of transporting people who are able to drive by themselves with the safety concern of the driverless car malfunctioning, [thereby]forcing the passenger to take the wheel”.

    Like

  • *Mr Cumberbatch should write an article on the positive application of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE applied to Barbados political and government areana’s. AI in its present form can at least perform at a level that matches any present political or government iteration the exits in Barbados. All present Bajan governments like to push technology as problem solvers, here’s one to replace themselves.

    Ha, ha, ha…….*

    @Wily, might not be far off…some applications can already advise on law with accuracy that at least matches that of a trained lawyer.

    AI has the capability of analyzing data to help it make predictions about the outcomes of legal proceedings better than humans. Clients are often asking their legal counsel to predict the future with questions such as “If we go to trial, how likely will it be that I win?” or “Should I settle?” With the use of AI that has access to years of trial data, lawyers are able to better answer such questions.

    Like

  • Is that Mr Cumberbatch or Mr Cimberbatch… Perhaps we may need to teach Jeff how to do the anonymous thing 🙂

    Like

  • @Jeff

    Dr. Lucas posted this comment on another blog yesterday. Should we write this off to the ever superior attitude the scientist exudes?

    What you said about the misconception Barbadians have about how highly educated lawyers are, is indeed correct. It never ceases to amaze me that law (one of the easiest courses at University) results in its practitioners receiving among the highest enumerations on earth. It is a program that depends on precedence and rote learning.The progress which has been made in the scientific arena would never have been achieved if scientists were governed by the past as lawyers are. When last have you heard of a lawyer inventing some thing new in the law? As far as I am concerned lawyers are parasites on society.

    Liked by 1 person

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    Dean Jeff, your last para is an interesting play of words or the maddening use of regulatory double-speak…or am I missing the professor’s thrust?

    When it’s noted that “a new California regulation… permits the testing of driverless cars without passengers” that clearly suggests complete autonomous driving. It’s perplexing to me therefore that the regulation then “stipulated rules relating to disengagement of the autonomous mode”.

    What does “disengagement of autonomy” mean if the general definition of vehicle autonomy is supposed to mean comprehensive control of the vehicle by the AI?

    Am I splitting hairs and does “disengage” simply mean an idling vehicle completely turned off and accessible to traffic officers to take under their control if necessary after “the prompt reporting of any accident”.

    But when the autonomous vehicle is not the CAUSE/INITIATOR of the accident but merely struck from behind when stopped or otherwise involved with no fault whatever can that autonomy be re-engaged after the police activity (all relevant details are taken from Messrs Autonomous accordingly) in order for the vehicle to continue its journey?

    Is this latter even part of the legal regulatory framework ?

    Like

  • It seems to me as if Dr Lucas got it absolutely right. Law is a vocational course; academic law is a side line. Thinking is more than case law or precedent or attempts at judge-made law.

    Liked by 1 person

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    Mr Blogmaster, LOL…you do enjoy a conniption !

    Like

  • @Dee Word

    Oh what do you mean?

    Giving the professor the opportunity to defend a discipline in which he is heavily vested is all.

    Liked by 1 person

  • I never expected to see Jeff mention AI.

    Perhaps it is an indication that no area of human activity is completely outside of legal interest. The idea that law is a “vocational course” indicates the age of those making the statement. Many modern lawyers have been exposed to heavy statistical courses and the artificial data that Jeff speaks up has statistics as one of its pinions. The lawyer has changed.

    Good job, Dean. I did not expect to see you in this area. you have outpaced your ‘detractors’.

    For those who are interested, here are a few item that you can google
    Artificial intelligence
    Machine Learning
    Big Data
    Bayesian Analysis
    They are all connected.

    https://blogs.oracle.com/bigdata/difference-ai-machine-learning-deep-learning

    (I often state .. this is a topic to which I cannot contribute. If I leave out the legal bits, I may be able to contribute on some of the items I mentioned.)

    Liked by 1 person

  • Dr. Lucas posted this comment on another blog yesterday. Should we write this off to the ever superior attitude the scientist exudes?

    @David, as a by-now veteran member of an academic community, I will not deign to comment negatively on such an ignorant [in the true sense of that word!] comment. I do not believe that any subject is easier or more difficult to study than any other at University level and the writing itself betrays the difference between true knowledge and hearsay! -ENUMERATIONS for REMUNERATION and PRECEDENCE for PRECEDENT or PRECEDENTS! And am I to believe that all scientific knowledge is original?

    Liked by 1 person

  • It seems to me as if Dr Lucas got it absolutely right. Law is a vocational course; academic law is a side line. Thinking is more than case law or precedent or attempts at judge-made law.*

    There you go again!

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Jeff

    The blogmaster is inclined to retreat on these matters read operating at the outer band of our competence. Suffice to say the platform upon which a society is built requires all disciplines of learning to be interdependently effective.

    Enough said!

    Liked by 1 person

  • What does “disengagement of autonomy” mean if the general definition of vehicle autonomy is supposed to mean comprehensive control of the vehicle by the AI?

    @DPD, I imagine that the vehicle is capable of alternating or of being alternated between autonomous and non-autonomous mode by remote means.

    But when the autonomous vehicle is not the CAUSE/INITIATOR of the accident but merely struck from behind when stopped or otherwise involved with no fault whatever can that autonomy be re-engaged after the police activity (all relevant details are taken from Messrs Autonomous accordingly) in order for the vehicle to continue its journey?

    @ DPD, Exactly!

    Liked by 1 person

  • Thanks Jeff for your reply to my question…

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @David Blogmaster…oh I get that ‘defense mechanism’ ting but it’s still a LOL post!…Dr Lucas’ remark was pure snarky speak or to use your words the “ever superior attitude the scientist exudes”.

    One shoukd follow your oft noted advice of ‘not being baited by every post’ particularly those intended to generate emotive tit for tat..😂!

    I would ask the Dr Lucas or his instigator @Hal how in heavens name is a subject matter which must be engaged in EVERY aspect of international discourse, daily society … in everything can be so csvalierly dismissed as some vocationa easy-peasy area or some side-line.

    Looka, we all berate lawyers (often quite justly) but that line of reasoning is irrational and deserves no serious retort as it’s not a serious statement.

    Could those who study History, English Lit, Geography , Sociology, Philosophy or Journalism et al not be afflicted with the same condemnation of doing one of the easiest courses at University!. …Of course many of them don’t haul in the mega remuneration of top lawyers so thus the eternal ‘big shot envy…alas!

    Surely scientific discovery and innovative technical creations are what improves our life on earth so more power to the abilities of the DrLucas’ of this world… not sure why disparging lawyers in that context of professional achievement is necessary, however,

    All that said Jeff’s department should be cannabilizing itself and reducing the number of trained lawyers in Bim…we do need more scientists/technical folks than we do lawyers!

    I gone.

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    Mr Blogmaster…the Dean covered it …but do post one of those two repeated attempts I made prior to seeing his remarks.

    And thanks for your response to my concern @Jeff.

    Like

  • And thanks for your response to my concern @Jeff.

    !De nada!

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    “I imagine that the vehicle is capable of alternating or of being alternated between autonomous and non-autonomous mode by remote means.”

    @Dean Jeff, I have done very little deep reading on autonomous vehicles but your suggestion above brings to mind the depth of the legal issues about which you spoke.

    1.Are these hundreds of thousands of autonomous vehicles going to be ‘wired’ into a central command for engaging/disengaging as you noted or is that a ‘preprogrammed” AI feature?
    2. If ‘wired in’ does that not expand the legal jeopardy of the ‘manufacturers’ liability?

    I expect AI autonomy to cover let’s say 1000 of the most common and not so common issues, 50 of the rare occurrences and then to have enough ‘intelligence’ to autonomously craft a solution for an oddity or two.

    So to disengage after an accident would be within the 1,000 and so too to reengage after being given an appropriate command by an approved law officer.

    Anyhow, I am merely hypothesising …some research needed. I gone.

    Like

  • @ de Pedantic,

    Instigator? I simply agreed with him, and did when he posted the original. Yes about easy subjects cultural studies, journalism, history, sociology, etc. journalism is a vocational course and should not be taught in universities (like nursing), but on the job. Any subject could be demanding if you go beyond the frivolities.

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ David BU

    @ Jeff

    Dr. Lucas conclusion may be right if judges made decisions on what other judges did before . In which case a decision based on statistical probability would exactly be the same in the scenario outlined by Jeff.
    How ever we know that judges do more than this. They are supposed to think. Hence Jeff angst.
    Machines cannot and do not think. In Jeff’s scenario it merely counted the number of times the judge and court made the same ruling. Each presiding judge can ignore precedents because of new scientific information.

    Like

  • De pedantic

    I actually agree with the latter part of your statement … when have had a real discussion about the natural sciences on BU?

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    Mr Austin….I will ask again (RESPECTFULLY 😁) as I did yesterday are u on medication or something.

    Revert to the LAWYER-POLITICIANS TAKE US FOR FOOLS blog….YOU agreed with Lucas AFTER he cited, expanded and agreed with YOUR original remark on lawyers.

    In my logic book that makes YOU the instigator….or maybe you should be called a co-conspiratator! 🤣

    I gone dis time…oh lordie you are ‘da best at forgetfullness’!

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ TheOGazerts at 10 :48 AM

    I am pleased to note that you are keeping abreast of new developments in the Artificial Intelligence field. We expect more informed inputs in the BU Household. Especially on digitisation of the society.

    Like

  • @de Pedantic,

    You do not incite an idea or opinion.

    Like

  • @Dee Word

    No need to be pedantic, move on!

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ de pedantic Dribbler at 11 :42 AM

    Self driven cars are owned by the driver/ passenger.Provided the driver /passenger follows instructions e.g keeping his hands hovering over the steering wheel, the engineering/programming failures are those of the manufacturer. The driver/passenger is supposed to take over in an emergency. A decision to go on an icy road is that of the driver /passenger.
    Therefore his liability.

    Just expressing my view.

    Like

  • RE
    Dr. Lucas posted this comment on another blog yesterday. Should we write this off to the ever superior attitude the scientist exudes?

    @David, as a by-now veteran member of an academic community, I will not deign to comment negatively on such an ignorant [in the true sense of that word!] comment. I do not believe that any subject is easier or more difficult to study than any other at University level and the writing itself betrays the difference between true knowledge and hearsay! -ENUMERATIONS for REMUNERATION and PRECEDENCE for PRECEDENT or PRECEDENTS! And am I to believe that all scientific knowledge is original?

    THE ENGLISH WORD “IGNORANT” IS DERIVED FROM THE LATIN VERB IGNORO= I DO NOT KNOW.

    TO SUGGEST THAT TO THINK THAT DR LUCAS DOES “NOT KNOW” IS MORONIC, AND IGNORANT BOTH in the true sense of that word! AND IN THE COMMON USE OF THE WORD IN BARBADOS.

    RE I do not believe that any subject is easier or more difficult to study than any other at University level and the writing itself betrays the difference between true knowledge and hearsay

    THIS IS AN OPINION, AND HAS NO BASIS IN FACT.
    IT IS INDEED A FACT THAT MANY UNIVERSITY STUDENTS UNIVERSALLY FIND PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS EXCEPTIONALLY DIFFICULT! OF COURSE LAW STUDENTS ARE EXPERTS AT BOTH MATH AND PHYSICS.

    OF THE SEVERAL DISCIPLINES THAT FORM THE CORE OF MEDICINE, MOST STUDENTS FIND IMMUNOLOGY, AND NEUROSCIENCE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT! AND THEY ARE DIFFICULT, BECAUSE YOU CANT MEMORIZE THAT STUFF EASILY. BUT LAW STUDENTS CAN HANDLE SUCH INFORMATION, WITH THE EASE IN WHICH ONE IMBIBES THEIR CAMPBELL SOUP!

    IF YOU HAVE MASTERED HISTOLOGY, YOU CAN FIGURE OUT PATHOLOGY, BUT THE IMMUNOLOGY BITS NOW INCLUDED FOR EXAMPLE IN DISEASES OF THE KIDNEY, OR FIGURING OUT THE SEVERAL DISEASES THAT ARISE FROM EACH OF THE GERM LAYERS OF EITHER THE OVARIES OR TESTES, IS PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT! LAW STUDENTS WILL DRINK THIS UP LIKE WATER!

    IF YOU HAVE A GOOD IDEA OF PHYSIOLOGY, YOU CAN GRASP PHARMACOLOGY, SINCE MODERN MEDICINES AS BASED ON MECHANISMS OF ACTION BASED ON “PHYSIOLOGY GONE WRONG.” BUT THIS MATERIAL WOULD BE ABSORBED BY LAWYERS WITH GREAT EASE.

    IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT WHEN DR LUCAS POSTS HIS SHORT, SIMPLY WORDED AND INFORMATIVE POSTS ON BU, THAT THE CLASSIC BU BETZPAENIC BRIMBLERS, HAVE LITTLE TO SAY………..THEY CANT. ONE WONDERS WHY.

    IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, THERE IS A LOT OF MERIT IN WHAT DR LUCAS WROTE.

    RE And am I to believe that all scientific knowledge is original?
    OF COURSE NOT!
    ONLY LEGAL INFORMATION IS ORIGINAL.

    Like

  • I TEACH MY MEDICAL STUDENTS, WHEN EVER YOU HAVE TO GO TO COURT TO GIVE MEDICAL EVIDENCE, THE LAWYERS ON THE OTHER SIDE WILL ASK YOU STUPID QUESTIONS SEEKING TO TRIP YOU UP.

    THIS IS WHAT YOU MUST DO AND REMEMBER.
    REMEMBER HE IS NOT LIKELY TO KNOW ANY SCIENCE AND IS DEFINITELY A MEDICAL ILLITERATE!

    INITIALLY, PRETEND TO BE QUIET AN EVEN SLOW, QUIET AND STUPID…AND WAIT FOR HIM TO POUNCE! THEN MURDER THE FOOL WITH THE MEDICAL JARGON.

    THEY WILL ASK YOU TO EXPLAIN. NOW YOU ARE IN CHARGE
    TURN AND FACE THE JUDGE AND ADDRESS THE JUDGE TO INDICATE THAT THE STUPID LAWYER WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

    IF A LAWYER EVER ASKS YOU IF YOU ARE A GENIUS. ANSWER YES!

    GO TO TOWN ON THE JOKER WITH DISDAIN.
    ON COMPLETION SHAKE HIS HAND IN THE CORRIDOR OR COURT YARD

    THERE ARE FEWER THINGS YOU CAN DO FOR FUNI

    Like

  • @ Sargent
    Some fridges already do that!

    Like

  • What baffles me here is the assumption made by Jeff, that an article about the law and AI, may not be of deep interest.
    Quite frankly it is a very refreshing departure from the norm.

    Liked by 1 person

  • The atoms of which every element of matter is composed have a nucleus at the center and electrons whirling about this nucleus that can be visualized as planets circling around a sun, though it is impossible to locate them precisely within the atom. The nuclei of atoms are composed of protons, which have a positive electrical charge, and neutrons, which are electrically neutral. Electrons are electrically negative and have a charge equal in magnitude to that of a proton.

    The number of electrons in an atom is normally equal to the number of protons in the nucleus. As a result, atoms of elements are normally electrically neutral. The mass of an atom lies almost entirely in its nucleus since protons and neutrons are far heavier than electrons.

    Free neutrons are unstable particles which decay naturally into a proton and electron, with a half-life of about 12 minutes.

    neutron ===> proton + electron + a neutrino

    However, it is remarkable that neutrons, when they exist together with protons in the nucleus of atoms, are stable. Protons are about 1,836 times heavier than electrons, and neutrons are about 1,838 times heavier than electrons. The energy balance in the decay of a neutron is achieved by the
    anti-neutrino, a neutral particle that carries off surplus energy as the
    neutron decays. The nominal mass of an atom of an element is measured by the sum of the protons and neutrons in it. This integer is called the mass number. The nominal mass of an atom is not affected by the number of electrons, which are very light. Hence the nominal mass, based on the mass number, approximates the actual atomic mass. The number of protons in the nucleus, which determines the chemical properties of an element, is called the atomic number. Elements are arranged in ascending order of atomic number in an arrangement called the periodic table. The term derives from the tendency to periodicity of chemical properties deriving from arrangements of electrons in atoms.

    B. Radioactive Decay
    The nuclei of some elements are not stable. These nuclei are radioactive, in that they emit energy and particles, collectively called “radiation.” All elements have at least some isotopes that are radioactive. All isotopes of heavy elements with mass numbers greater than 206 and atomic numbers greater than 83 are radioactive.

    There are several ways in which unstable nuclei undergo radioactive decay:

    Alpha decay, which the emission of a helium-4 nucleus containing two protons and two neutrons. This is the least penetrating form of radiation. It is stopped by the dead layer of skin and so does no harm when outside the body. But it is the most damaging form of radiation when deposited inside the body.
    Beta decay, which the emission of an electron or a positron (a particle identical to an electron except that it has a positive electrical charge).
    Electron capture, which is the capture by the nucleus of an electron from among the ones whirling around it. In effect, the electron combines with a proton to yield a neutron.
    Spontaneous fission, which is the fission of a heavy element without input of any external particle or energy.
    Often, there is still excess residual energy in the nucleus after the emission of a particle or after electron capture. Some of this residual energy after radioactive decay can be emitted in the form of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation, called gamma rays. Gamma rays are essentially like X-rays and are the most penetrating form of radiation. [1] It should be noted that the emission of gamma rays does not change the mass number or atomic number of the nucleus — that is, unlike radioactive decay by emission of particles, spontaneous fission, or electron capture, it does not cause the transmutation of the nucleus into another element.

    Each quantum, or unit, of a gamma ray (or other electromagnetic energy) is called a photon. Gamma rays are like light, except that they are much higher frequency electromagnetic rays. Photon energy is directly proportional to the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation. Photons of gamma rays can damage living cells by splitting molecules apart or ionizing elements in them.

    Many heavy nuclei emit an energetic alpha particle when they decay. For instance uranium-238 decays into thorium-234 with a half-life of almost 4.5 billion years by emitting an alpha particle:

    92-uranium-238 ====> 90-thorium-234 + alpha particle (nucleus of 2-helium-4)

    The mass number of uranium-238 declines by four and its atomic number by two when it emits an alpha particle. The number before the element name is the atomic number and that after the element name is the mass number. The totals of the atomic numbers and the mass numbers, respectively, on both sides of the nuclear reaction must be the same. (This is like balancing a chemical equation, in which the number of atoms of each element on both sides of the reaction must be equal)

    In beta decay, the atomic number increases by one if an electron is emitted or decreases by one if a positron is emitted. For instance thorium-234, which is the decay product of uranium-238, in turn beta-decays into protactinium-234 by emitting an electron:

    90-thorium-234 ====> 91-protactinium-234 + beta particle (electron)

    The nuclei that result from radioactive decay may themselves be radioactive. Therefore, some radioactive elements have decay chains that may contain many radioactive elements, one derived from the other. (See Uranium Factsheet for a diagram of the decay chain of uranium-238.)

    The radioactive decay of nuclei is described probabilistically. Within any given time period, a particular unstable nucleus has a fixed probability of decay. As a result, each radioactive element is characterized by a “half-life,” which is the time it takes for half the initial atoms to decay (or transmute into another element or nuclear state). At the end of one half-life, half the original element is left, while the other half is transformed into another element. After two half-lives, one fourth of the original element is left; after three half-lives one eighth is left, and so on. This results in the build-up of decay products. If the decay products themselves decay into other elements, a whole host of radioactive materials come into being. The decay products of radioactive elements are also called daughter products or progeny.

    C. Binding Energy
    Nuclei are tightly bound together by the strong nuclear force and each nucleus has a characteristic binding energy. This is the amount of energy it would take to completely break up a nucleus and separate all the neutrons and protons in it. Typically, binding energy increases by several megaelectron-volts (MeV) for every proton or neutron added to a nucleus. (Since protons and neutrons are constituent particles of nuclei, they are known collectively as nucleons.) The release of nuclear energy derives from the differences in binding energy between the initial nucleus (or nuclei) and relative to the end-products of the nuclear reaction, such as fission or fusion.

    The electrons that whirl around the nucleus are held together in their orbits by electrical forces. It takes on the order of a few electron-volts to dislodge an electron from the outer shell of an atom. The “binding energy” of a nucleon is on the order of a million times greater. Electrons are the particles the enable chemical reactions; nucleons take part in nuclear reactions. The huge differences in binding energy are one measure of the differences in the quantities of energy derived from nuclear compared to chemical reactions.

    It must be stressed that the binding energy is the amount of energy that would have to be added to the nucleus to break it up. It can be thought of (approximately) as the amount of energy liberated when a nucleon is drawn into the nucleus due to the short range nuclear attractive force. Since energy and mass are equivalent, nuclei with higher binding energy per nucleon have a lower atomic weight per nucleon.

    The key to release of nuclear energy from fission of heavy elements and fusion of light elements is that elements in the middle of the periodic table of elements, with intermediate mass numbers have a higher binding energy per nucleon (that is a lower atomic weight per nucleon). Therefore when a heavy nucleus is fissioned, the resultant products of the nuclear reaction have a slightly smaller combined nuclear mass. This mass difference is converted to energy during nuclear fission.

    D. Nuclear Fission
    Nuclear energy is produced by the conversion of a small amount of the mass of the nucleus of an atom into energy. In principle, all mass and energy are equivalent in a proportion defined by Albert Einstein’s famous equation

    E = mc2

    where E stands for energy, m for mass and c for the speed of light. Since the speed of light is a very large number–300 million meters per second–a small amount of mass is equivalent to a very large amount of energy. For instance, one kilogram (about 2.2 pounds) of matter is equivalent to

    E = 1 kg x (3 x 108 meters/sec)2 = 1 x 3 x 108 x 3 x 108 joules
    = 9 x 1016 joules

    This is a huge of amount of energy, equivalent to the energy content of over three million metric tons of coal.

    Heavy atoms such as uranium or plutonium can be split by bombarding them with neutrons. [2] The resultant fragments, called fission products, are of intermediate atomic weight, and have a combined mass that is slightly smaller than the original nucleus. The difference appears as energy. As explained in the previous section, this mass difference arises from the binding energy characteristics of heavy elements compared to elements of intermediate atomic weight. Since the binding energy of the fission products per nucleon is higher, their total nucleonic mass is lower. The net result is that fission converts some of the mass of the heavy nucleus into energy.

    The energy and mass aspects of the fission process can be explained mathematically as follows. Let the total binding energy of the heavy nucleus and the two fission products be Bh, Bf1, and Bf2, respectively. Then:

    Amount of energy released per fission Er = (Bf1 + Bf2) – Bh

    Amount of mass converted to energy = Er/c2 = {(Bf1 + Bf2) – Bh}/ c2

    This energy appears in various forms: the kinetic energy of the neutrons, the vibrational energy of the fission fragments, and gamma radiation. All of these forms of energy are converted to heat by absorption in with the surrounding media in the reactor, mainly the coolant and the moderator (for thermal reactors).
    The most basic fission reaction in nuclear reactors involves the splitting of the nucleus of uranium-235 when it is struck by a neutron. The uranium-235 first absorbs the neutron to yield uranium-236, and most of these U-236 nuclei split into two fission fragments. Fission reactions typically also release two to four neutrons (depending on the speed on the neutrons inducing the fission and probabilistic factors). One of these neutrons must trigger another fission for a sustained chain reaction. The fission reactions in a nuclear reactor can be written generically as follows:

    U-235 + n ==> U-236

    U-236 ===> fission fragments + 2 to 4 neutrons + 200 MeV energy (approx.)

    The uranium-236 nucleus does not split evenly into equal fission fragments. Rather, the tendency, especially with fission induced by thermal neutrons, is for one fragment to be considerably lighter than the other. Figure 9 (not available in on-line version of report) shows the distribution of fission products due to fission with the slow neutrons and fast neutrons.

    Like

  • @William

    He is correct if compared to other articles touching on party politics and the like.

    Like

  • *TO SUGGEST THAT TO THINK THAT DR LUCAS DOES “NOT KNOW” IS MORONIC, AND IGNORANT BOTH in the true sense of that word! AND IN THE COMMON USE OF THE WORD IN BARBAD

    Wow, another soul who does not abide our question on anything, yet who is incapable of discerning the difference between ENumeration and REMuneration!. No wonder Barbados is where it is!

    IF A LAWYER EVER ASKS YOU IF YOU ARE A GENIUS. ANSWER YES!

    Unfortunately, that is not a matter for you or the lawyer to determine.It is a question for the judge who is trained in….?

    Liked by 1 person

  • Jefferson Cumberbacth

    He is correct if compared to other articles touching on party politics and the like

    Or Trump!

    Like

  • David

    I remain just as baffled by the intense interest in Trump and May

    Political discussion has been hijacked by the pathetic BLPDLP party hacks and apologists.

    Like

  • Discussion is hijacked if others remove themselves from the discussion. Ignore those with agendas, overpower them with a relevant discussion.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Ontario allows public road testing of autonomous cars — without someone behind the wheel

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/automated-vehicles-autonomous-ontario-pilot-driver-1.4988392

    Like

  • *TO SUGGEST THAT TO THINK THAT DR LUCAS DOES “NOT KNOW” IS MORONIC, AND IGNORANT BOTH in the true sense of that word! AND IN THE COMMON USE OF THE WORD IN BARBAD

    Wow, another soul who does not abide our question on anything, yet who is incapable of discerning the difference between ENumeration and REMuneration!. No wonder Barbados is where it is!

    BARE BULSHIT.
    AS A SCIENTIST I QUESTION LOTS OF THINGS, THAT IS THE NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY!

    DR LUCAS IS NOT IGNORANT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. AND THAT CAN NOT BE REFUTED!

    AND I PURPOSELY DID NOT ADDRESS THE difference between ENumeration and REMuneration!. I NEVER MENTIONED IT. NOR DID I FIND THAT IMPORTANT! . THAT IS PICKING WILTS

    IT IS STUPID TO THINK THAT A PhD IN FOOD SCIENCE IS SOMEONE WHO IS IGNORANT IN THE TRUE SENSE OF THE WORD BECAUSE HE DOES NOT KNOW the difference between ENumeration and REMuneration! OR CARE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. THAT IS A NONSEQUITUR!

    IT IS STUPID TO THINK THAT BARBADOS IS WHERE IT IS BECAUSE A MAN WITH A PhD IN FOOD SCIENCE DOES NOT KNOW the difference between ENumeration and REMuneration! OR CARE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. THAT IS A NONSEQUITUR!

    MANY WILL SAY THAT Barbados is where it is BECAUSE OF THE MORONS LEADING THE GOVERNMENT WHO ARE LAWYERS, SOME OF WHOM WERE NO DOUBT TAUGHT BY YOU, MR LUMENary.

    re IF A LAWYER EVER ASKS YOU IF YOU ARE A GENIUS. ANSWER YES!

    WHEN A LAWYER ASKS YOU IF YOU ARE A GENIUS, HE EXPECTS YOU TO SAY NO, AND HE IS READY TO GO WITH HIS NEXT STUPID QUESTIONS BASED ON THAT ANSWER.

    SAY YES………AND HE HAS TO THINK……..A DIFFICULTY FOR MOST LAWYERS.

    RE Unfortunately, that is not a matter for you or the lawyer to determine.It is a question for the judge who is trained in….?

    IF IT IS NOT FOR THE LAWYER TO DETERMINE WHY ASK THE QUESTION, AS HAS ACTUALLY OCCURRED?.

    IF A DR IS A GENIUS……..LIKE MANY DRS I HAVE MET, HE WILL CERTAINLY KNOW THAT……AND LONG LONG BEFORE MOST JUDGES WILL BE ABLE SO TO DETERMINE…………AFTER ALL, A JUDGE TO ME IS ACTUALLY JUST ANOTHER STUPID LAWYER AND MEDICAL ILLITERATE, IF I AM IN COURT TO GIVE MEDICAL EVIDENCE.

    Like

  • @ David,

    Taking a break. Awesome performance by exceptional musical scientists.

    Like

  • The court room is theatre. It is not about innocence or guilt. We have lawyers in Barbados qualified in the 1960s and 70s most of whom have not entered a classroom since then. We live in a culture that deifies lawyers for all the historical reasons I have said. When last did a Barbadian lawyer, based in Barbados, write a book on the law, or even a serious essay on the subject?
    I respect anyone who takes time out to study, but to exaggerate that degree of study is silly. A graduate in the UK in any discipline can do a nine-month conversion course and be well on the way to being a lawyer. And, those nine month are not spent introducing the new student to the theory of law, it is about the institution and how it functions.
    I think Jeff puts his head above the parapet and should be congratulated for that. In fact, I think he should have been made a QC ages ago. In the UK he would have been. But there is a long way from that and some person getting up in the court in his robe and acting like he is in Hollywood.
    But our culture celebrates mediocrity; just look at those in parliament.

    Like

  • @Hants

    Jeff seems to be a man with a more sedate taste.

    Like

  • Ignore those with agendas,……:-)

    Sound advice, David. I will follow it

    Liked by 1 person

  • Jeff

    There was no weapon in the traditional sense. No determinable motive. Although there might have been an electronic fingerprint it could have been circuitously routed. If these elements are absent, was this man really murdered although an electronic investigation by the motor company suggested external capture of the control systems.

    Is there enough to say that this man was murdered, in the usual meaning? Can the regular law really cover this?

    Like

  • @ David,

    I was just trying to provide an ” interlude ” . Too besides it is possible that Jeff might appreciate exceptional ” Soca “.

    As an aside lol , I am ramping up my guitar skills for a possible ” performance ” at Vision 2020 We Gatherin “

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Hants

    In a world speeding on an AI tack sound can be synthesized, no need for a CANBajan. Do not expect a call from Jong anytime soon.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Hal Austin February 24, 2019 3:25 PM
    You need to understand that you must ALWAYS agree with certain folk on this forum, especially those referred to as LUMENaries! LOL

    You need to understand that such folk are always right? and they never have an agenda.
    They will make Jesus, himself look like a mere acolyte.

    They can come here and nothing they must be questioned, but yet they can call scholars like Dr Lucas ignorant.

    Bare mock sport in the rum shop!

    Like

  • Maybe they will spell out what that agenda is. Or, maybe they will have the last word – whatever that means.

    Like

  • watch this Mr Austin

    IF A LAWYER EVER ASKS YOU IF YOU ARE A GENIUS. ANSWER YES!

    Unfortunately, that is not a matter for you or the lawyer to determine.It is a question for the judge who is trained in….?

    TELL ME HOW CAN A MAN UNTRAINED IN THE SCIENCE OF PSYCHOANALYSIS WITH JUST A TEMPORARY GLASS FROM HIS PERCH DETERMINE IF SOME ONE IS A GENIUS OR NOT

    IS IT NOT TRUE THAT HIGHLY PAID SCIENTISTS ARE PAID TO GIVE EVIDENCE ON SUCH MATTERS AND NOT LUMENaries?

    IS IT NOT TRUE THAT HIGHLY PAID SCIENTISTS ARE PAID TO DETERMINE IN COURTS IF A WITNESS OR ANY ONE ELSE IS A GENIUS.

    Bare mock sport in the rum shop, MAN! BARE MOCK SPORT

    Like

  • @ David,

    “Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley has urged Barbadians living across the world to come home for 2020.

    Ms. Mottley made the appeal tonight at the launch of We Gatherin’ Barbados 2020 in Parliament’s Courtyard before a large crowd, including those “watch parties” of Barbadians and friends in Geneva, New York, Beijing, Canada, Washington and Australia.”

    DOES THAT NOT INCLUDE BAJANS LIKE ME ?

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Hants

    Of course, just you. Not the guitar.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Is there enough to say that this man was murdered, in the usual meaning? Can the regular law really cover this?

    @ Pacha, “Regular law” as you put it, classifies murder as a homicide. Once you have a dead body,,the law will require evidence beyond reasonable doubt as to how that death was caused and will convict the accused if on such evidence he possessed the necessary mens rea at the time he committed the act that caused death. Your hypothesis suggests that these points may be difficult to establish; in such case, a charge of murder or, indeed, homicide could not be upheld against the accused.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Too besides it is possible that Jeff might appreciate exceptional ” Soca “.

    @ Hants, Danke… I have from my earliest days up till now! All kinds!

    Liked by 1 person

  • Can a judge tell the difference between an expert witness and a genius? The court room is theatre.

    Like

  • So i properly maintain my artifical intelligent car but during the driving process the car rans a red light and killed the occupant of an up coming vehiclev
    I being the owner would it be practical for the Court to released me of any damages done to the other vehicle or persons killed in the damaged car
    Paying attention to what Madeline Roe stated
    I noticed she did not go all the way in not holding the driver of the artificial car accountable in the accident since she purpose to say. ” properly maintained” vechicle by owner

    Liked by 1 person

  • A driverless car that malfunctions by not stopping at a red light is a negligently designed product by the manufacturer.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Georgie Porgie

    The big misconception in acedemic education … if a subject matter is difficult such as physics or Neuroscience it is is deep …

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ Lexicon at 7:45 PM

    None is difficult.One has to like the subject, and one needs to have the confidence not to be side tracked by naysayers. As GP pointed out one learns the basic rules by rote and it is logic and observation there after.

    Like

  • RE As GP pointed out one learns the basic rules by rote and it is logic and observation there after.
    I THINK THAT WAS JOHN WHO SAID THAT. APPLIES FOR PHYSICS & , PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY, WHERE IF YOU ARE A MATHEMATICIAN, THAT HELPS. IF YOU ARE NOT A MATHEMATICIAN. YOU ARE IN DEEP DO DOO

    FOR THE OTHER BRANCHES OF CHEMISTRY, ONE SHOULD INVEST TIME IN MASTERING BONDING FOR INORGANIC, AND THE FACT THAT ESSENTIALLY THERE ARE ONLY 5 TYPES OF MECHANISMS IN ORGANIC CHEMISTRY.

    BUT YOU CANT SAY THAT NO SUBJECT IS DIFFICULT, CAUSE THAT IS NOT REALLY TRUE

    THERE ARE SUBJECTS I CALL “BRIMBLE SUBJECTS” YOU GET THE GIST OF THE CONCEPT AND YOU CAN BRIMBLE THROUGH

    IN MOST SCIENCE SUBJECTS THERE IS NO WAFFLING ROOM. P1 VI/T1 =P2 VA/T2. YOU CANT CHANGE THAT

    IN 2004 I WAS TEACHING IN CURACAO AND THE PATHOLOGIST ASKED ME TO TEACH THE PATHOLOGY OF THE URINARY TRACT

    IT STARTED OF EASY, URETERS, URETHRA ALL OLD SCHOOL BUT THEN WHEN IT GONE TO DISEASES OF THE GLOMERULI THAT WAS LIKE A LATIN UNSEEN—-WITH ALL THE MODERN INFORMATION AND TESTS ON THE IMMUNOLOGICAL COMPLEXES — EVEN KNOWING THE HISTOLOGY IT WAS A SLUG FEST.

    LATER HE ASKED ME TO HELP WITH MALE GENITALIA.
    PENIS PROSTATE ETC……..EASY
    BUT TESTICULAR TUMORS? ANOTHER STORY…….ALSO OVARIES.

    NEUROSCIENCE NOT EASY EITHER.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Sledging is in the news and I guess it’s ok to sledge the study of a particular discipline it’s another subset of Art vs Science argument but don’t we need both?

    Liked by 1 person

  • Skills, not subjects, should be the focus of education systems in the region, says ECCB Governor, Timothy Antoine.

    Liked by 1 person

  • The following posted to another blog by Green Monkey.

    The Crisis of Science

    “In recent years, the public has gradually discovered that there is a crisis in science. But what is the problem? And how bad is it, really? Today on The Corbett Report we shine a spotlight on the series of interrelated crises that are exposing the way institutional science is practiced today, and what it means for an increasingly science-dependent society.”

    https://youtu.be/LfHEuWaPh9Q

    Like

  • “I may be deemed an eternal pessimist, but the idea of Barbadians readily embracing autonomous driverless cars (those remotely controlled only) does not come easily to my imagination.”

    One of the larger areas of initial interest has been in driverless trucks and buses versus cars. Greed says, if we can save the cost of the driver, there is value.

    Like

  • Jeff

    “The law will require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt as to how that murder was caused and will convict the accused if on such evidence he or she possessed the mens rea at the time he or she committed the act that caused the death”

    Not necessarily… Jeff in a Crime of Passion, manslaughter, or second degree murder one does not have to possessed the mens rea in order to be convicted of such crime ….

    And noted that the mens rea is formed before or during the Commission of a crime…

    Like

  • Jeff

    If a man comes home and fines a man in his bed with his wife and kills him in the heat of the moment or out of share emotional impulse … he still can be convicted of a lesser offence than murder though there were no mens rea in such act…

    Like

  • Jeff

    And finally, you still come be convicted of vehicular homicide in the case of drunk driving devoid of the mens rea …

    Like

  • Can be convicted sorry…

    Like

  • From Jeff Cumberbatch’s column above:
    “Just look at our hostile attitude to the smart phone where we were content to highlight the ways in which it might be misused rather than its patent utility in order to justify its official prohibition in classrooms.”

    Interesting that some Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurs and execs (including apparently Bill Gates and the late Steve Jobs) are very careful to take steps to minimize the screen time of their own children including intentionally sending them to “low tech” schools.

    Toddlers and Screens: More Than 1 Hour a Day Can Cause Developmental Delays and Have Lasting Effects on Attention, Language, Memory, Social and Motor Skills

    For many years now, Silicon Valley parents (aka tech inventors) have been sending their kids to “low tech schools” and limiting their use of technology at home. Within the last few months, they’ve been reportedly taking more desperate measures to shield their kids from screens– even spying on their nannies.

    Regardless, it’s not illegal for businesses to create software, programs, and technology specifically for American kids or to advertise these products to them – including Sesame Street – even though this has been illegal in other countries for a while now.

    It’s ultimately up to parents to determine how much longer they will allow businesses and schools to encourage kids’ excessive use of screens and technology not only for recreational purposes – but for their education as well.

    More:
    https://www.activistpost.com/2019/01/toddlers-and-screens-more-than-1-hour-a-day-can-cause-developmental-delays-and-have-lasting-effects-on-attention-language-memory-social-and-motor-skills.html

    And by many developed countries’ current standards the French seem to take to take to extremes the precautionary pinciple (a concept in science that is largely ignored these days when it comes to evaluating profitability vs risk)

    C’est Bon! Since 2009, France Has Been Proactive in Protecting Kids From Cell Phone Radiation. Now They Have Banned Student Smartphone Use in Schools.

    The Telecom Industry (“Big Wireless”) has never said cell phones are safe. Cell phone manufacturers have been warning shareholders that they may eventually be held liable for the harm their products have caused. No one wants to insure them anymore.

    For many years already, France has been very proactive about protecting children from harm caused by radiation exposure to mobile phones (cell and cordless).

    In 2009, they passed this legislation:

    All advertising of the devices to children under 12 is to be prohibited under the legislation – announced by the Environment Minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, last week – and he will also take powers to ban the sale of any phone designed to be used by those under six.
    Even though in 2010 France originally banned cell phone use “during all teacher activity,” this new ban requires students ages 3 to 15 leave their phones at home or keep them turned off during the school day. The ban also extends to tablets, computers, and other Internet-connected devices. Teachers may choose whether they want to enforce the ban with older students.

    More
    Activistpost (DOT) com/2018/08/cest-bon-since-2009-france-has-been-proactive-in-protecting-kids-from-cell-phone-radiation-now-they-have-banned-student-smartphone-use-in-schools.html

    Liked by 1 person

  • Greenmonkey

    Some schools in America do not have advise students not to bring their cell phones to school …. the schools just block the use of such phones …

    And most hospitals do not have to advise visitors and patients of the dangers of cell phones use with respect to the interference with the medical equipment … they just block such use …

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Lexicon

    If the husband fines the man why would he kill him?

    Liked by 1 person

  • David

    If you came home from a hard Day’s and find a man in your bed with your wife you would say to him how was it? Come now… many men have gone to their graves for making such a senseless miscalculation…

    David, have you forgotten OJ Simpleson and Ron Goldman; and the police officer in Barbados whose husband stabbed to death?

    Like

  • David

    And in Proverbs 6:34 is tell us that:”For jealousy enrages a husband and he will not spare in the day of vengeance.”

    Like

  • @lexicon

    You missed the point, moving along.

    Like

  • David

    You are talking about the missed of the word fines …come on man you get the general idea …

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Lexicon

    It was obviously a poor attempt at humour.

    Like

  • DAVID

    DO YOU REALLY EXPECT THAT DYSFUNCTIONAL DUMMY TO GRASP AN INTENDED PUN?

    WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE BIGGEST BRASS BOWL AND BULLSHITTER CALLED BUSH SHIT TO APPEAR ON BU? IS HE ON THE WAY TO MEET HIS DEAR OLD DADDY -LUCIFER AKA SATAN?

    Like

  • Bush Tea appears to be on a sabbatical. Why do you want to pull the lions tail Sir?

    Like

  • LION’S TAIL SHITE!

    AN ASS IS AN ASS NOT A LION!

    WHEN HAS EVER AN ASS BEEN A LION?

    THE MAN COMES HERE AND CUSSES ME LEFT AND RIGHT OVER THE YEARS AND HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT ME. AND EVERYTHING HE SAYS ABOUT ME IS FALSE…………..AND YOU HAVE ALLOWED IT! AND JOINED WITH HIM IN THE ATTEMPT TO MOCK ME!

    LION’S TALE MY ASS

    LOOK HOW WELL THE DISCUSSIONS ARE GOING WITHOUT HIM

    IF HE IS SUCH A LION WHY DOES HE NOT GO AND HELP MIA MUTTLEY TO SAVE BIM’S ASS.

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ David BU

    I was thinking that “killing”was the cryptocurrency in which the fine was paid.

    Like

  • On the topic of crypto, I haven’t seen anybody reference Quadriga.
    Quadriga was essentially a “wallet”, a holder of crypto. The young owner died suddenly when on his honeymoon in India, and he had all the passwords to access Quadriga in his head, and nobody has been able to crack his encrypted platform wallet. Many millions weigh in the balance.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @NO

    Read the story, incredulous it was.

    @GP

    Many engage in banter on BU, some of you take it to an unnecessary level. Say what you want Bush Tea likes to rubble with you.

    @Vincent

    You need to stop!

    Like

  • RE Many engage in banter on BU, some of you take it to an unnecessary level. Say what you want Bush Tea likes to rubble with you.

    I DONT BANTER ABOUT MY SCHOLARSHIP AND KNOWLEDGE
    SUCH BANTERING IS UNNECESSARY
    I REALLY DO NOT WANT TO BANTER WITH BULLSHIT, OR ANY OF HIS ILK!

    I DONT COME ON BU TO BANTER WITH FOOLS!

    ONLY A FOOL OR A LIAR COMES IN A PUBLIC FORUM AND DECLARES THAT TRUTH IS FICTION, AND DEPRIVE OTHERS FROM LEARNING FROM THE LEARNED!

    I ACTUALLY, HOWEVER, SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT HE, AND TWO OTHERS WHO POST ON BU ARE ACTUALLY DEVILS, AND SONS OF BELIAL

    Like

  • No he is not, he plays with you.

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    For a mock doctor it doesn’t take much to get you unglued … because you are an ignorant hot tempered egotistical nincompoop

    Like

  • David

    I realized my mistake and thought it best not to respond ….

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie

    Talks about boasting about one’s academic achievements, but yet he is arrogant enough to make mentioned of his scholarship … what a conceited fart…

    Like

  • WHEN A FOOL AND LIAR COMES IN A PUBLIC FORUM AND DECLARES THAT TRUTH IS FICTION, AND DEPRIVE OTHERS FROM LEARNING FROM THE LEARNED THAT IS NOT BANTER OR PLAYING!

    THERE IS SO MUCH I HAVE COMING TO ME DAILY THAT I CAN SHARE ON BU, WHICH I REFUSE TO SHARE BECAUSE OF HIS SHIT AND THE IDIOCY OF SCUM LIKE HE AND DPD.

    AND I DONT WANT NASTY OLD MEN TO PLAY WITH ME. I LIKE WOMEN
    LET HIM PLAY WITH THOSE OF HIS ILK AS I SAID BEFORE.

    LET ME CHOSE WHO I WANT TO PLAY WITH.
    LET HIM GO AND PLAY WITH HIMSELF.

    WHEN HE TOLD ME TO GET BEHIND HIM WHAT WAS HE PLAYING AT? WAS THAT BANTER TOO?

    IT IS WRITTEN IN 1 Corinthians 13:11 AS WE LEARNED IN PRIMARY SCHOOL .

    When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

    AND WITH OUT ADDING TO THE WORD I put away childish things. AND BECAME SERIOUS!
    I DO NOT COME HERE TO PLAY! I COME TO LEARN….OR TEACH! NOT ASSOCIATE WITH DEVILS AND MORONS

    Like

  • William Skinner February 24, 2019 2:47 PM

    David

    I remain just as baffled by the intense interest in Trump and May

    Political discussion has been hijacked by the pathetic BLPDLP party hacks and apologists.

    Britain is our former colonial master. Many of us were born there and also have family there. The US of A has been the biggest influence on Barbados since Britain. Many of us have family there. You have the world’s former super power and the world’s current super powers both in total chaos. You have the world order disintegrating and alliances being strained to the limits.

    And you wonder why the fascination?

    Could you take your eyes off a high speed train derailing about to happen and return them to a toy train falling off a toy track????????

    It is hard but we attempt to do it because it is our toy train and our toy track. But remember, the high speed train, though far way can blow our toy train further off track.

    Liked by 1 person

  • WHY BE BAFFLED?

    ALL OF WHAT IS HAPPENING TO DAY WAS PREDICTED LONG LONG AGO

    You have the world order disintegrating and alliances being strained to the limits

    EXACTLY AS PREDICTED! ALL ESCHATOLOGISTS ARE REJOICING AS THE PROPHETIC SCRIPTURES PLAY OUT BEFORE OUR VERY EYES!

    NEXT ACT IN THE PLAY IS THE RISE OF ANTICHRIST OUT OF THE REVIVED ROMAN EMPIRE TO LEAD THE ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT THAT MANY STUPIDLY SEEK.

    GUESS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN FIRST?

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s