Boy you ramble-on a lot. I think I've met my match.
The main gist of this palaver is that, "because I can't disprove your ramblings about Sony sensors," you're going to keep rambling.
So be it.
Of course you only talk about sensor performance, because the rest of Sony's amenities are lacking. Where would they be without the help of Zeiss and Voigtlander?
That's because Sony's sensors vs Nikon's reliance on other people's sensors is the only aspect of Sony camera technology that's actually relevant in this discussion on the D850. Sony designed and made the D810 sensor. Who made and designed the D850 sensor has a huge bearing on the likely performance of the D850.
If you've actually bothered to read anything that's non-Nikon, you'll find that I'm just as critical of Sony lens development as I am of Nikon-designed sensors and (until the most recent generation) Canon sensors.
More palaver. Sorry, don't have the time to engage.
The usual TL;DR trolls use any time they can't win an argument.
]quote]I would have no problem buying a Sony system either ... if they only had decent glass in the areas I prefer also. But they don't.
As you mentioned in the above paragraph-rant, I don't even bother to read about Sony ... and that's because I am
happy with my current gear.
Yet you're always here on
Nikon threads preaching 'Sony' ...
as if you're "trying to convince" everybody else ... or
yourself 
[/quote]
I'm always trying to find something better, no matter what I'm using.
Camera, boat, car, house, camping gear... I'll buy the best for purpose, then look for something even better.
If you're so happy with your gear, why bother discussing and preaching it?
Evidence also useful in building case trials, which I have been doing in the physical world, as an investigator, probably longer than you been daydreaming on the internet, and probably longer than you've ever done anything else. In fact, since before the internet, cell phones, etc.
That's a form of argument, which I mentioned. 'Both academia and argument'. You build up evidence - both direct and circumstantial - for or against a point of contention, then explain how it supports your case or disproves the opposing case.
Something you haven't bothered to do at all here.
Sorry, but this smacks more addled palaver. And you have your understanding exactly backwards.
Explain how.
You've just done exactly what I pointed out in the section you quoted - all you've done is repeatedly say, 'You're wrong', without actually pointing out why. 'You're wrong' isn't an argument.
Again, sorry, but now you're entering into my world, and it is you who are confused.
A fact is something that is measurable, observable, and repeatable; that's it. A fact is different from a truth.
There are also historical 'facts' (a single occurrence) versus measurable, observable, repeatable facts.
You're confusing the definition of facts with the definition of truths.
Truths are timeless; facts are not. Measurable facts can and do change, quite often, usually over time however.
In fact (pardon the pun):
- It is impossible to step twice into the same river."
- ~ Heraclitus
What the hell is a 'truth'?
That smacks of quasi-religious talk.
'S. aureus is sensitive to flucloxacillin' is no longer a fact as soon as you find a single strain that's resistant to flucloxacillin. It's a generalisation, because most strains are sensitive to flucloxacillin, but cannot be taken as fact. 'This strain of S. aureus is sensitive to flucloxacillin', however, is a provable fact.
Measurable facts do not change. If they do, you haven't been specific enough. If you measured someone's blood pressure at 95/50, it was 95/50 at that point in time. That doesn't change. Five minutes later and the BP may be different, but that doesn't change the fact that, at that point in time, the patient's BP was 95/50.
Were you better-versed in logic, you would see your self-contradiction right here of your previous utterance.
I fail to see your point. And your increasingly flowery rhetoric is getting more and more difficult to read. Besides, you're now entering my world - debating.
There are numerous articles out there on the mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance. Do a search on Pubmed and you'll find plenty. There are probably other undiscovered mechanisms out there, but the fact that other mechanisms exist does not mean that the currently-known ones are wrong.
Huh? 
I'll elaborate.
This is what you said: 'and are as germane to your life as are scientific laws'
In other words, you said that, since man-made contracts are relevant to daily life, they are a technical field.
That's a non-sequitur. Something can be relevant without being technical.
I like salad. It's healthy and tasty, so I eat a fair bit of it. Therefore, salad-making is relevant to daily life.
Does that make salad-making a technical field? Of course not.
You may be able to present other arguments as to why you think man-made contracts constitute a 'technical field, but the fact that they are 'relevant to daily life' is
not one of them.
You've also shown that you know nothing about logic.
Again, putting forth a point without explanation. Not an argument. It would get thrown out of any journal or courtroom.
What's actually funny is that you are underscoring my point here, not your original one.
You're changing course as you go along, to clarify, which was my point, not yours.
That
was my original piont. 'BP of 55/30' and 'penetrating injury to the CFA' are objective, observable facts. How these individual facts are
interpreted to form a bigger picture is another matter entirely.
You, on the other hand, contended that they are not objective facts, but are subjective. A quickly-inserted arterial line or CT scan will prove you wrong. Here is your quote:
To begin with, blood pressure values change daily--even throughout the day. They can change from circumstance, drug/alcohol use, even after a few cups of coffee. To say, "His blood pressure is 55/30," describes a very temporary situation. What is objective at the moment ... can change very rapidly. He will either have it raised ... soon ... or perish.
And also, to what extent has the femoral artery been penetrated? Just nicked? Completely severed?In other words, you've implied that, just because it's temporary, it's not a fact. Wrong - a pressure transducer attached to an arterial line will tell you that, at that moment in time, the BP is 55/30. That's a fact. And you've implied that, just because there may be varying levels of injury to a blood vessel, it is not a fact that the vessel is injured. Again, easily disprovable - it's either injured or it's not.
Again, shows how little you know about the best of contracts. Logic binds them. Only when poor logic (read, poor wording) is used is there ambiguity.
Then why do many cases drag on for weeks, months or even years? Surely, if laws and contracts are purely mechanical and not subject to argument, they should all be over as soon as both sides have read them. Yet lawyers and judges will argue endlessly about the meaning of a single word or phrase.
Finally we agree on something. If I sign a contract, without reading it properly, then yes I am the one to blame.
However, if I trust somebody to do something for me, by granting him the authority to act in my stead, as a licensed professional, and he fails to get the job done, then that is another matter. Same as you.
Do you expect your car mechanic to fix your car without destroying it - or, worse, sabotaging it? Do you expect your surgeon to take out your appendix rather than simply cutting you open, tying your intestines in knots and carving his name into your liver? Do you expect the pumps at your petrol station to pump fuel rather than water into your car? I'd think so.
In the same vein, I'd expect a major travel agent, selling tens of thousands of travel insurance contracts annually, to know what they're selling and to act without malice in selling the product.
A society where you have to do everything yourself and have the specialised knowledge and skills to double-check everyone's work, because you can't trust them to do it properly, doesn't work past the most primitive levels of development.
Another invalid comparison, and more palaver, but it's such an incorrect belief system that it demands comment.
Keep in mind that the the standard for all legality is "the reasonable man."
I do not have the microscopic equipment to test the food I eat for microbes. That is an "unrealistic" expectation of consumers to equip themselves with microscopic testing equipment prior to eating a simple meal.
However, if somebody hands me a document to sign, written in a language I understand, and in letters I can read with my naked eye, then it is "reasonable" to expect me to read it. Therefore, my failure to read the fine print, or my failure to interpret the information correctly, is my own failure. As it was yours.
If that's the case, then why do we have lawyers? If everyone can read and understand legal documents, why bother having people who specialise in them? And, if the lawyer messes up and things don't go your way even though his or her reading of the contract said that it would, do you then have a case to sue the lawyer? (don't know about the US, but, here, I don't think you can)
Can't? As in breaking a physical law of time/space ... or an inconvenient one of convention ... or just the limitations of your own awareness?
Again, can't?
In many places, it's downright prohibited. Can't carry one without a local licence, can't import unless as a dealer, etc. And, if you get caught, the penalties are high.
If you think you're special, I dare you to bring an automatic weapon into Singapore and carry it around.
In all seriousness, I don't wish bad on you or anyone else. A few years ago, a Navy seal (on this board I think) actually lost his life in Mexico. It can happen to even the best of us ... or, even more likely, the less aware or less vigilant. But, regardless, I wouldn't wish harm on you or anyone else.
I see enough of it every day.
Seen it from both ends. Trauma in the hospital, and fighting for my life crossing the Sahara and in an armed ambush in Ecuador.
Sounds more like you have no sense of humor or are clever in some ways, not so much in others.
I have no interest in evidence?
Lol I have been dealing in nothing but evidence for most of my life.
Real evidence, the kind you have to go outside and collect ... sometimes in bad neighborhoods ... at night ... or the wee hours of the morning ... spying on people, documenting their activities (whenever your investigation reveals them to be active) ... interviewing witnesses from all walks of life ... measuring skidmarks, hiring forensic experts, storing evidence according to law ... checking for evidence of forced entry ... harvesting security footage placed where a loss occurred (or was alleged to have occurred) ... harvesting intel through pretext, a professional con (when legal) ... whatever it takes ... and reporting these facts ('this evidence') to my principals.
Can only chuckle at you here ...
What I can also do, however, is relax, speculate, and hope for something better when I am not working 
You've yet to bring out any evidence - whether directly-measured or circumstantial, authoritative or merely supportive - regarding your stance on Nikon cameras. Rhetoric doesn't constitute evidence. If you have them, bring out the links, charts and articles to support your position, so that we can all validate or critique them.
Not high-falutin', earned.
As a licensed investigator, I'm quite sure I've earned my right to the 007 epithet more than you've ever earned the handle of "Shadowblade."
Or are you a licensed Ninja? If so, how many years? lol
Indeed, based on your thread topic a few months back, you deserve to have that fantasy-description revoked at this point, sport.
Shadow Three, then Shadow One, were my callsigns (I have others, but I'm not going by
Rainbow or
Daffodil...). I played for the Blades. More than earned, I'd say. And I don't know where you're getting 'ninja' from.
007 is a fictional spy, assassin and sleazebag.
