Heisenberg uncertainty principle in daily life I need some examples of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on a basic level, or if possible in daily life. Or maybe a simple explanation for validity of the principle in easier words. I cannot get any example except for the measurement of position and momentum of electrons with the help of photons so I decided to ask it here. Are there any simple examples?
 A: If by "daily life" you mean things we experience on a day to day basis at the macroscopic level (as opposed to the microscopic level), while the principle applies it does so insignificantly. 
The principle essentially states that you can never simultaneously know the exact position and speed (momentum) of an object because all objects behave like both a particle and a wave at the same time. If you know the exact  position, there will be some error in determining the momentum, and vice versa. At the macroscopic levels of every day life the behavior of a ordinary object is overwhelmingly particulate in nature.

Are there any simple examples?

Consider a baseball of mass $0.145\ \mathrm{kg}$ moving at a velocity of about $40\ \mathrm{m/s}$ ($90\ \mathrm{mph}$). The De Broglie wavelength of the baseball is on the order of $10^{-34}\ \mathrm m$. The diameter of an ordinary atom is on the order of $10^{-10}\ \mathrm m$. Consequently, the wavelike behavior of the baseball is too small to observe, and therefore the error in determining the simultaneous position and momentum of the baseball is infinitesimally small.

So what is the relation of wavelength and diameter with the
  uncertainty in measuring position and momentum. I didn't completely
  get it.

OK, let me put it another way. First, the uncertainty principle is
$$\Delta x\Delta p \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}$$
or 
$$\Delta x \geq \frac{\hbar}{2\Delta (mv)}$$ 
Where $\hbar$ is the reduced Plank's constant of $1.0546 \times 10^{-34}\ \mathrm{J\cdot s}$ 
Now our baseball has a mass of $0.145\ \mathrm{kg}$ and speed of $40\ \mathrm{m/s}$ as measured by a radar gun. Assume the radar gun has an accuracy of $1\ \%$. Therefore the uncertainty in our speed (and momentum given constant mass) is also $1\ \%$ or $0.4\ \mathrm{m/s}$. Given this uncertainty, the uncertainty in the position of our baseball, $\Delta x$, is about $9 \times 10^{-34}\ \mathrm m$, which would be many orders of magnitude smaller than the diameter of an ordinary atom. In other words, the uncertainty in the position of ordinary objects is essentially zero.
Compare this to the uncertainty in the position of an electron of mass $9.1 \times 10^{-31}\ \mathrm{kg}$ moving at the same speed with the same uncertainty, which would be about $1.4 \times 10^{-4}\ \mathrm m$. That is 6 orders of magnitude greater than the diameter of an ordinary atom. 
A more practical example for an electron is determining the uncertainty in its speed when moving around the nucleus of an atom given that its position is confined to the diameter of the atom. For example, the diameter of a hydrogen atom is about $1 \times 10^{-10}\ \mathrm m$. That would make the uncertainty in the speed of the electron confined to the atom of about $0.6 \times 10^6\ \mathrm{m/s}$.
Bottom line: Although the uncertainty principle applies to all objects, its application is not relevant to the objects we encounter in daily life. 
Hope this helps.
A: While I agree with tparker saying "If simple examples of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle occurred in everyday life, then it would have been discovered before 1927.", your question reminded me of a problem from Sakurai's Modern Quantum Mechanics: 
1.22 Estimate the rough order of magnitude of the length of time that an ice pick can be balanced on its point if the only limitation is that set by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Assume that the point is sharp and that the point and the surface on which it rests are hard. You may make approximations that do not alter the general order of magnitude of the result. Assume reasonable values for the dimensions and weight of the ice pick. Obtain an approximate numerical result and express it in
seconds. 
I really liked this problem because I learned two things: first, that there is a Uncertainty relations between angular momentum and angle, a fact systematically overlooked in teaching of Quantum Mechanics at undergrad level. Second thing is that, while HUP effects in this example is practically unobservable, the answer to the problem was very surprising low: ~100 seconds! 
A: Though it was mentioned, I will reiterate diffraction of light, esp. through a slit. Specifically, light impinging normally on a single slit.
And infinite plane wave as zero transverse momentum; but once it goes through a slit, it's spatial position is confined to the width of the slit, there by leading to an uncertainty in the transverse momentum, which, in the photon model matches the HUP.
A: Maybe I missed it, but somehow no-one seems to have mentioned the Bandwidth theorem. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is simply one manifestation of it. Basically if you have a function $\psi\left(x\right)$, and its Fourier transform $\tilde{\psi}\left(\nu\right)$, then you can have $\psi\left(x\right)$ being zero everywhere except a small region of $x$-axis (precise position), or you can have $\tilde{\psi}\left(\nu\right)$ being zero everywhere except a small region of $\nu$-axis (precise frequency or momentum). BUT you cannot have both. The proof of this is entirely classical.
Manifestations of this are: 
(1) cross-talk on radio stations. If you transmit at a specific carrier frequency (momentum) you can only modulate this freqency so fast in time (position) before the bandwidth needed for your signal starts spilling over into nearby channels.
(2) how easy it is to get echo with a sound from a clap. the reason being is that clap is short in time, thus broad in frequency, whilst echo usually occurs at very precise frequency, so if you do not know which frequency the echo is at, a short (broadband) clap will ensure that you will hit that frequency (and others)
(3) Diffraction limit in optics. If you use a specific wavelength (frequency, momentum) for your imaging, then there is a practical limit on how well you can resolve small objects (position) due to tendency of light to diffract. Note that this is classical - no photons needed
There are many more examples. My message is this. 
Do not put the Uncertainty Principle on the pedestal. It is a specific manifestation of a VERY common phenomenon. 
A: See, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is about quantum mechanics, which happens on a microscopic scale. However, we are living a macroscopic life, too big that we cannot see quarks, even atoms, with our eyes. So, you wouldn't be having examples of the heisenberg uncertainty principle unless you're a particle scientist whose "daily life" is about operating hadron accelerators.
A: A very practical example-- My wife and I can only determine either the position or speed of the constituent parts the other's body, but not both at the same time. Therefore, it is quite impossible for us to dance together. 
The best we can do is to individually stimulate movement in rhythm to some music (which hopefully exists) and maintain a safe distance for independent motion. I've heard that some couples have somehow managed to consistently dance in synchronicity. If physicists ever learn how this is done, I expect there would be tremendous forward progress in quantum theory, computation, and practical engineering applications. As well as much awkward dancing.
A: Some lottery or Keno games in the everyday world have their winning numbers selected by a physical (as opposed to algorithmic) random number generator that uses quantum events such as nuclear decay, shot noise or photon reflection / transmission by a semi-transparent mirror. More about this in a Wikipedia article.
