Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

JMJimmy Re:In lost the will to live ... (640 comments)

Honestly, I view statistics as the belief system of science. It can't be proven yet but in the mean time it's believed because of the likelyhood it can be proven.

11 hours ago
top

How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

JMJimmy Re:In lost the will to live ... (640 comments)

Absolutely true. And even though science can disprove the 6k Earth it doesn't mean everything else in religious texts is false. While I don't proscribe to a religion I also don't proscribe to invalidating religion - even if certain elements are suspect that doesn't degrade some lessons to be learned from the texts - faith or not.

11 hours ago
top

How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

JMJimmy Re:In lost the will to live ... (640 comments)

Technically, that's just theory that hasn't been proven by science yet ;)

13 hours ago
top

How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

JMJimmy Re:In lost the will to live ... (640 comments)

This was my point in the other discussion

Odd, as you make entirely different points in the other discussion. Perhaps you should review your old posts to see why you were (rightly) thrashed.

I think I know my own points. Thanks for your input though.

yesterday
top

How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

JMJimmy Re:In lost the will to live ... (640 comments)

Because people don't understand that science is built on experimentation, they don't understand that studies in fields like psychology almost never prove anything, since only replicated experiment proves something and, humans being a very diverse lot, it is very hard to replicate any psychological experiment.

This was my point in the other discussion. If you can take a test and replicate it to get a consistent result that is scientific. Psychological studies can never truly be reproducible because of the diversity of humanity.

yesterday
top

How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

JMJimmy Re:In lost the will to live ... (640 comments)

Religion and science can co-exist if people stopped attributing religious or anti-religious views to science. Science makes no claims about religion and they are not mutually exclusive. When atheists are asked "well, if you don't believe in religion what do you believe in" - they'll often erroneously say "science". Science is not a belief system though it may cause claims of religion to be called into question example: Jesus walking on water. To our current understanding of science this is not possible unaided. Maybe it was a hoax, maybe it was a divine being, maybe it wasn't a literal claim - science doesn't know, that's for people to examine or accept on faith (as part of a religion or otherwise).

Science needs to be separated from anti-religious ideology.

yesterday
top

How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

JMJimmy Re:In lost the will to live ... (640 comments)

[facepalm] - The article made no such claim. The claim was that they shared a view that "science was like magic" - which both of them have been quoted as saying. That's the only comparison that was being made between the two - you're reading way more into it than it actually says.

yesterday
top

How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

JMJimmy Re:In lost the will to live ... (640 comments)

What article are you reading? The part about psychology supports what I was saying completely.

Ad hominem arguments are pointless.

yesterday
top

How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

JMJimmy Re:In lost the will to live ... (640 comments)

I still don't see the relevance to my comment but ok.

yesterday
top

How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

JMJimmy Re:In lost the will to live ... (640 comments)

I would not disagree with your comment, but am perplexed as to its relevance.

yesterday
top

How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

JMJimmy Re:So educational! (640 comments)

Doing experiments on something does not require physical presence. And most of what we think we "know" has not been proven yet in a scientific manner. It's likely provable, but could be completely misunderstood and only the observable effects are common between what we think we know and what is provable.

yesterday
top

Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

JMJimmy Re:why does the CRTC need this list? (319 comments)

Try giving this a read: http://www.kelleydrye.com/imag... [kelleydrye.com] in particular paragraph 2 of page 8.

Obviously, when talking about "the jurisdiction of Canada over Netflix", we are already assuming that the Canadian court has jurisdiction according to Canadian law (otherwise the discussion is moot), and we are talking about the ability of Canada to enforce its laws against Netflix Inc.

But previously you said

Jurisdiction only exists where governments can enforce that jurisdiction.

The document states that personal jurisdiction exists "... a court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign company: First,if the company is regularly and continuously doing business in a state (even if it is not registered to do business there),it can usually be sued in that state’s courts and the federal courts located there,for a claim which arose anywhere in the world. Doing business may include systematically selling products into a state."

No "both kinds of jurisdiction" - just the one.

As to enforcement, aside from numerous treaties between Canada and the US where it could be enforced, international law also allows for it to a certain extent. Also, simply enforcing a judgement by preventing funds from leaving the country or extraditing those responsible are options. There are probably some I'm not even aware of.

2 days ago
top

Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

JMJimmy Re:why does the CRTC need this list? (319 comments)

You're right that the US has a lot of ways of pressuring foreign companies, but that's for the simple reason that the US is a big and desirable market. Saying "if you do X, you can't use US banks, you can't travel to the US, and you can never open a branch in the US" is pressure, but it doesn't establish jurisdiction.

Not pressuring, taking legal action against. Try giving this a read: http://www.kelleydrye.com/imag... in particular paragraph 2 of page 8.

2 days ago
top

Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

JMJimmy Re:why does the CRTC need this list? (319 comments)

You're an idiot if you think governments don't have mechanisms for dealing with companies outside of their physical territories. Especially Canada and the US.

2 days ago
top

Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

JMJimmy Re:why does the CRTC need this list? (319 comments)

That makes no sense what so ever. Netflix doesn't pay Canadian taxes and the CRTC is not responsible for taxes - that would be Revenue Canada.

2 days ago
top

Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

JMJimmy Re:why does the CRTC need this list? (319 comments)

Except this appears to be case of using regulatory power grab to do something that is probably not within the regulatory statute i.e. having to identify users.

As stated in about half a dozen posts, the CRTC did not request user information - they requested the total number of Canadian subscribers. They do have the authority to request any non-personal information for the purpose of implementing their mandate.

Does any other regulated service have to do so? cable? Broadcast?

Yes, those and internet, and radio, and so on.

Since they can't just order it via a judge or some other method apparently, they are trying to strong arm by threatening with an unrelated to the issue regulation they CAN control.

No, they have the authority to make the order; it's part of the Broadcasting Act. They cannot order or even request a court disclose personal information, otherwise, if it has anything to do with TV/Movies/Radio/Internet/etc they have the power to gather information, regulate (or not), and take action against those who do not comply in order to meet the requirements of their mandate. They have very similar, one might argue even broader, powers than the FCC in the US.

3 days ago

Submissions

top

Healthcare.gov Problems Aren't All Incompetence

JMJimmy JMJimmy writes  |  about 10 months ago

JMJimmy (2036122) writes "Libby Shaw of Daily Kos writes

It should come as no surprise to anyone that there has been a number of right wing cyber attacks on the healthcare.gov site. It seems that there has been a concerted effort on several fronts in an all out Republican led war to kill and destroy the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. One has to ask if this war on Obamacare has been an intentional and coordinated effort.

"

Link to Original Source
top

Whitehouse petition to make patent trolls pay

JMJimmy JMJimmy writes  |  about a year and a half ago

JMJimmy (2036122) writes "The patent office has approved countless ridiculous patents that are clearly non-sensical or based on obviously long-known ideas, making it easy for trolls to collect ridiculous patents and use them as their flimsy excuse to file outrageously expensive lawsuits.

This petition seeks to make patent trolls think twice about suing. Perhaps it ought to be expanded to include copyright trolls!"

Link to Original Source

Journals

JMJimmy has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>