Sentences with phrase «opposite conclusions on»

Assuming the Canadian courts continue to exclude consideration of the patent prosecution when construing claim terms, it is possible for courts in the United States and Canada to come to opposite conclusions on the meaning of claim terms even if the patents are the same.

This week two decisions, Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo ‑ Services Inc. and Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v. Enbridge Pipelines Inc., provided seeming opposite conclusions on respectively rejecting seismic testing near traditional Inuit territory in Baffin Bay and at the same time approving the National Energy Board's plan for the Line 9 pipeline.

Not exact matches

In his must - read post on the topic, Tomasz Tunguz looks at this same conclusion from the opposite vantage: How much revenue churn can you sustain given your growth rate?

My point is that, even taking their simplistic comparison of statutory rates and fiscal - year revenues on its own terms, it suggests the opposite conclusion for the whole decade.

In Harris» narrative, it's hard to see exactly how she comes to the conclusion that concerns for «the poor's rights» demand aligning with liberal politics rather than those of Christian conservatives, but by the end, Harris finds herself on the opposite side of the political spectrum, voting with those she had envisioned as the manifestation of evil while growing up.

The conclusion of the Book of Isaiah (66:23 - 24) is particularly noteworthy because the penultimate verse asserts in wondrous fashion that «all flesh shall come to worship me, whereas the final verse moves in the opposite direction of harsh judgment on those who rebel.

considering an Ivy league historian (Richard Bulliet) has relatively definitive book on the topic that is over 40 years old («The Camel & the Wheel», 1975) and which arrives at the exact opposite conclusion based on KNOWN evidences, it certainly would appear this a media - generated ratings grab without scholarly basis.

Atheists and Christians can agree on the conundrums that drive them to opposite conclusions.

These arguments also show that Whitehead's account raises afresh, somewhat surprisingly for those who regard him as Hume's opposite on induction, some of the latter's doubts concerning the justifiability of sweeping conclusions reached through scientific inference.

On the other hand a number of studies done in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Spain or Russia suggest an opposite conclusion — voters reward incumbents who spend more and more freely (e.g. Jones, Meloni and Tommasi, 2012; Sakurai and Menezes - Filho, 2008; Balaguer - Coll et al, 2015).

On the other hand, there are also studies that show just the opposite effect, reaching the conclusion that TAMs have an anti-tumor effect.

Based on the assumption that brainstem death means life has ended, I would draw the opposite conclusions to medical ethicist...

On the other hand, many animal studies on exercise have come to the opposite conclusion, suggesting that exercise suppresses the immune systeOn the other hand, many animal studies on exercise have come to the opposite conclusion, suggesting that exercise suppresses the immune systeon exercise have come to the opposite conclusion, suggesting that exercise suppresses the immune system.

Yet anesthesiologist Katie Schenning of the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland and colleagues reached the opposite conclusion last year when they analyzed data on a similar group of more than 500 elderly patients, mostly from Oregon.

«There is no research at all supporting a link between rice consumption and cancer, the little research that exists (on both US and Asian populations) appears to support the opposite conclusion, therefore we should err on the side of caution and not consume rice.»

This, I think, goes a long way towards explaining how Rothstein could draw opposite conclusions from the study based on the same set of results.

Do not be emotional when drawing conclusion in your argumentative essay on euthanasia as the result may be the opposite.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago recently conducted a study focusing on Lending Club — the largest marketplace lending platform — and reached opposite conclusions from the researchers that authored the Cleveland Fed working paper.

So it seems weird and counter-intuitive that with basically the same numbers, previous papers on asset location have come to the opposite conclusion and suggest that bonds go into the RRSP first.

They simply ended it by saying (in paraphrase) «the usa and japan are at extreme opposites in terms of laws, and can we learn anything from them while retaining our american way and is culture more the reason for these differences in laws imposed or not imposed on people while questioning if it really is for the better or not» He doesn't come to any conclusion but simply just wrote an interesting and relevant article opening up some insight into how different things are depeneding where you are from.

Finally, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a group of distinguished scientists — many of whom had previously done work for the IPCC — released a report today that comes to almost diametrically opposite conclusions of the IPCC report, noting that the IPCC excluded data from its report that didn't agree with its conclusions.

Imagine if you will, someone like me arguing evidence for AGW coming to CFACT and citing an article from, not a top - tier journal, nor even a second - tier, but more like a third - tier journal like the Asia - Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences (which people generally publish in when they can't pass the more rigorous peer review of the more reputable journals), and if that paper were written by a person who's work has had to be corrected by others, not once, not twice, but FOUR times to my knowledge, and every correction takes it back in the opposite direction of what that person was arguing, and if the paper I was citing was this guy making the same old tired argument he's been corrected on before, and if this paper already had evidence of data tampering to get it's conclusions... just imagine the uproar from the usual crowd here.

A broad array of leading climate scientists and policy specialists were also criticizing the panel for the exact opposite reason: They believe the main conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be too general and too conservative to convey a clear message about the grave threat of warming and to inform policies to address local climate change issues.

When I looked into it, I found the most interesting thing that actually supported my main conclusions in the best way possible even though on its face it had seemed the opposite.

A true scientist should be skeptical and particularly skeptical of things that are opposite to accepted physics and most particularly skeptical about conclusions based on such ridiculously sparse data.

On the most important issue, the IPCC's claim that «most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (defined by the IPCC as between 90 to 99 percent certain) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,» (emphasis in the original), NIPCC reaches the opposite conclusion — namely, that natural causes are very likely to be the dominant cause.

On the most important issue, the IPCC «s claim that — most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations [emphasis in the original], ‖ we once again reach the opposite conclusion, that natural causes are very likely to be dominant.

The Wall Street Journal has published yet another Op - ed distorting climate science and twisting the latest evidence to reach conclusions flatly opposite the state of knowledge: the Earth is on track to see dangerously high temperature increases with damaging impacts.

On the same day Anthony Watts and his colleagues released their findings BEST also released their finding but came to the opposite conclusion!

You've stretched most of the way down to a conclusion, what's to stop you making a plain statement along the lines that «on the face of the best evidence we have to date, Mann 2008's use of the Tiljander proxies was wrong on at least 2 counts: first they can not be adequately calibrated due to modern period contamination, and second because even if we allow the calibration at least two of the series were used in the opposite orientation to the most probable physical interpretation.»

On the opposite side of things, however, I have an issue with Kann's «cost - competitive» and «bankable» conclusions.

On being more specific about what seems contradictory about this piece and the Pielke / Trenberth / Willis (PTW) exchange, I suppose, as a non scientist, it seems to me that the conclusion at the end of PTW is that the measurements of OHC seem to be completely contradictory to model predictions, whereas this present RealClimate post has the opposite conclusion, namely, that measurements perfectly confirm the model predictions.

This is a wrong conclusion of you and the authors because the calculations demosntrate it is the opposite: With an atmosphere: 293 K on the daylight surface.

AND the appeals court making the claim that the defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he / she was damaged then «changing» that level of proof to what appears to be a higher standard by saying, «On review, we will not reverse the judgment unless the evidence as a whole unerringly and unmistakably leads to a conclusion opposite that reached by the post-conviction court.»

Yet in the 2012 case of Shukalkin v. Shukalkina, the Alberta Court of Appeal, involving another long marriage where there was also a child, came to the opposite conclusion and Mr. Shukalkin's had to pay his ex spousal support on the basis of him having 90K gross per year in income.

Layshock v. Hermitage School District and J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District were initially decided on the same day in the Third Circuit, but came to opposite conclusions, resulting in both being vacated and a new hearing en blanc, both released on June 13, 2011.

This was particularly damning as Laws LJ relied on exactly the same correspondence to reach his conclusion as had the judge to find the opposite.

Somehow, contrary to the implications of the most recent and credible research which indicates that joint custody either is problematic or offers no benefits on balance for children or their families, Bauserman has managed to «meta - analyze» selected studies on custody and come to what superficially appears to be the opposite conclusion.