Comment Re:If Apps are outlawed... (Score 1) 415
Just because guns a legal doesn't mean Toys 'R Us has to sell them.
If Toys 'R Us was the only store in the country however...
Comment Re:Worthless summary (Score 2, Informative) 631
That's because it is not a "reality show"; it is a documentary.
Comment Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (Score 1) 260
But that is how the SCOTUS works. It rules on a CASE where there is confusion as to what the constitution and law say. When it rules that the constitution overrides the law, it technically only rules for that case. However, to keep the SCOTUS from being bothered repeatedly by the same issue, lower courts take that one case as a precedent for similar cases. The law is not "struck down" or removed, it is simply ignored by the courts as being overridden by the constitution. Creating firm rulings where the law is ambiguous or contradictory seems like "judicial Power" to me. Perhaps "judicial Power" meant something else in Jefferson's time?
Comment Re:Ordering and Convergence (Score 1) 981
"You can visit him if and only if you or your girlfriend knows where he lives."
"Goddammit, we both know, so now we can't visit him!"
Fixed
Comment Re:Relativity is just a model (Score 1) 279
Sorry, but I'm a mathematician... so everything you physicists do is just a model to me. Ever since I realized (via Goedel) that there aren't even any complete and consistent theories for logic, I sort of figured that there would never be a complete and consistent theory for physics. (Let me know if you find one.) In the mean time, I'm still really impressed with the work physicists do! I really should finish working through Gravitation some day... that's cool stuff.
Doesn't the Goedel just require an axiom taken to be true but not provable? Science has that: The Principal of Uniformity of Nature, which is the logical basis of all scientific induction.
Comment Re:Sorry, No. (Score 1) 799
If you don't believe science rests on at least one truth that science can't itself prove (called faith by some, an axiom by others), then Godel's incompleteness theorem says you don't believe science is consistent.
All of science requires scientific induction to work. We can't prove it out of nowhere, and without assuming(believing) it, or some other axiom that can be used to prove it (e.g. the Principle of Uniformity of Nature), we can't prove anything with science.
AT&T Sends Mixed Message On Behavioral Advertising 27
Ian Lamont writes "An advertising company that runs a 'targeting marketplace' and partner AT&T are playing down the telecommunications giant's use of its services after AT&T's chief privacy officer told a House subcommittee yesterday that the company does not engage in behavioral advertising. The AT&T executive testified (PDF) to the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet that AT&T would not use behavioral advertising methods without informed customer consent. However, AudienceScience, a company that records 'billions of behavioral events daily' has apparently worked for AT&T since 2005. After the hearing, AudienceScience removed a client testimonial relating to AT&T from its website, so 'all the appropriate parties [have] consistent messaging,' its CEO said. An AT&T spokesman also said that the testimony was talking about AT&T's role as an ISP, not an advertiser."
