now, to me that is -- as a layperson, that is a "but for" causation, so, i'm not sure i -- as a layperson, i understand, you know, the intricacies of the way the language is getting parsed back and forth. >> i would add, that is a good question. in the burden of proof -- the burden of proof matters and merited at trial the employer had the burden of proof and gross flips that and says it never shifts to the employer even if the plaintiff can prove discrimination and your bill would return it to the status quo, once he proves discrimination played a role, the burden of proof shifts to the employer and that matteres. >> what would the instruction to the jury be under the supreme court decision now. >> under the supreme court decision. >> as it stand now, what would the instruction be. >> do you find mr. gross proved by a preponderance of the evidence that age was the "but for" cause of the demotion. >> but for that, he would not have been demoted. you think a jury -- would a jury understand that? i have a hard time understanding that. >> if i could clear fi on that question, the -- clarify,

for me and i tried to work on this all the time and i am just a layperson i don't relate to centigrade. >> this is a bigger problem than you would think the technical answers 0.8 centigrade one point* three fahrenheit. the debate in the copenhagen and the run up to it was all about the question of people kept talking about the target of the mainstream environmental groups now in knowledge there were too generous and we tried to hold the temperature increases that 22 degrees centigrade we don't speak that whenever was translated it said the 3.6 degrees fahrenheit. completed the meaningless and an arbitrary figure that is one of the reasons we were so insistent to say 350 parts per million it is a better measurement in the way but also means the same thing everywhere around the world. that is not a trivial problem pearl and it is one of the things that make it possible for people to shrug their shoulders and look the other way and getting past as those barriers are important. we were able to do it for one day, 36 hours we owned google news it was the most written about story in the world

is an inherent limitation of the accounting and literary professions to properly explain to the layperson what it is that is going on or is the structure of how the information that we make available in adequate, but susceptible to being made more informative so that that prudent layperson can make better judgments. >> i think these are complicated instruments. not designed to be understood by people who do not understand mathematical finance. i think there was an over reliance on ratings. that is one of the great weaknesses out there, the weakness of the rating system. >> do you think that the instruments and the processes are inherently so complex that they are not susceptible to more informative presentation to be prudent layperson who is looking to that information to make judgments? >> i think you can probably be better -- i think he can be better done. -- i think it can be better done. >> let me ask -- answer your questions in two ways. just to make clear, the program was not about disclosure. it was about the risks of the financial control in the program. the question you asked is

are you surprised that there could be such a debate on something that you would think -- me as a laypersonould think there are probably a lot of experts that can look at that and say it's roughly this, and they would all be fairly close. 5,000, 70,000, miles apart. >> it somewhat depends on the amount of oil versus gas that is in the mix. if you're counting crude oil that actually surfaces, you won't see the gas once it dissipates into the water. it eventually surfaces into the atmosphere. but that much crude oil, there shouldn't be that kind of discrepancy. something is missing here, and i don't know what it is. >> jeff: all right. we know it's a 21-inch pipe. that seems to be the only thing anybody can agree on. what is your best guess looking at this. when do you think this will be contained? >> well, you know, they have this whole list of options. and whether the insertion pipe technique works where they can put a rubber phalange around it and guide the flowing oil to the surface, whether the junk shot idea which i believe they may be ready for in a week or so works, which stuffs the w

i am just a layperson. i am constantly confused. i don't relate to centigrade. >> and this is a bigger problem than you would think. a good technical answer to your question is .8 degrees celsius about 1.3 degree fahrenheit. first the debate at copenhagen and before in the run-up to it was all about this question of people kept talking about the target of the mainstream environmental groups now acknowledged to be much too high, we tried to hold temperature increases to 2 degrees. 2 degrees centigrade. we don't speak centigrade. whenever it was transmitted in this country it said 3.6 degrees fahrenheit or whatever it is. completely meaningless and arbitrary figure that means nothing. that is one of the reasons we were so insisted on saying 350 parts per million. it's a better measurement anyway. it tells you what you need to have been the atmosphere. it also means the same thing everywhere around the world. that is not a trivial problem, that problem of where -- and it is one of the things that makes it possible for people to just so

inherent limitation of the accounting and of the literary professions to properly explain to the laypersonhat it is that is going on or is the structure of the information that we make available and adequate but susceptible to being made more informative so that prudent the person can make better judgments? >> i think these are complicated instruments not designed to be understood with people who don't understand mathematical finance. as a result of that i think there was an over reliance on radiance. i think the individual investor looked at their ratings before they bought and that is one of the great weaknesses was the weakness of the ratings system. >> but my question -- you think that the instruments and process these are inherently so complex that they are not susceptible to more informative presentation to the prudent layperson who is looking to the information to make judgments? >> i think i can probably be better done by them and think it will ever be completely done would be my judgment. >> mr. sirri? >> let me answer in two ways, with respect to the cse program and the more gene

i would like to ask each of you if you would summarize for us in a layperson's language why the militaryas such confidence that this, in fact, strengthens and does not present any of the challenges that some of the critics have raised? secretary superdelegates -- >> first of all, this tree, like its predecessors, brings four benefits that we would not otherwise have. the first is transparency. knowing what the russians are doing and being able to track their systems and being able to count them, being able to observe them for the first time and actually look at the warheads themselves, having the unique tagging we have talked about, none of this transparency would be possible without this treaty. the second is predictability. this is an important feature of strategic arms agreements with russia since the very first one in 1972. we need to have some idea and for both sides to know the limits of the other and therefore avoid the need to hedge against anthe unknowns. the third benefit is strategic stability and the way this treaty is structured as to that strategic stability as the number o

and i have to just tell you, as a layperson, i've been disturbed by the lack of reliability of this system from what i have been able to look at. i'm looking at a document. it's a study done from the u.s. minerals management service by west engineering services of december 2002. and the report suggested they testedeveral of these blowout preventers, and said if you take in -- if operational considerations ofhe initial drilling program for accounted for sheering success dropped to 3 of 6, 50%. 50% is not something that gives u huge confidence. the report goes on to say, west, that's the contractor here who did the investigation, west is unaware of any regulatory requirements that state the obvious. that the b.o.p. must be capable of sheering pipe planned for use in the current drilling program. apparently there's no regulatory requirement that there's been a demonstration of a particular b.o.p. to sheer a particular pipe of a particular situation. is that accurate? mr. moore, you might be the one most knowledgeable. >> let me respond to that, because cameron -- cameron took a position on th