Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:well, until it's amended. (Score 1) 93

I bet they would include something that actually seems like it should be.

You assume their judgement will not be bent by the needs of the states.

I read from this article a little notation, about how some Supreme court justices may want to re-consider the case due to the change in economic climate (regarding internet commerce).

It sounds a bit legislative to me, But I guess that is the nature of our newly Politicized Supreme court, which can now be viewed a progressive-demo-socialist corrupted institution (No longer so impartial or objective, certainly not indifferent anymore to what elected legislatures of certain political parties want.).

justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurrence. In addition to his “unqualified join and assent” to the “complete and correct” opinion of the Court, he wrote separately to emphasize his view that the Court should overturn Quill v. North Dakota and allow the states to impose sales taxes directly on the business of online retailers. The opinion is much more harmful now to the states than when it was decided; Justice Kennedy reports mail-order commerce of $180 million at the time of Quill (1992 – a few years before internet commerce), compared to more than three trillion dollars in 2008. Given the increased harm and the transformational effect on our society and economy of electronic communication, he calls for the Court to reconsider Quill as soon as possible.

Comment Re:How will the congressman from Amazon vote? (Score 4, Informative) 93

Why not tax the internet? I can see not taxing it when it was a fledging system

The internet connectivity is sometimes taxed through telecommunications taxes, particularly federal ones.

The ban is on state/city taxation of network access.

It prohibits things such as providers having to pay a "Franchise tax" for every city, discriminatory taxes, E.g. "LAN Tax per Port", "bit tax", "bandwidth tax", "Tax per E-mail message", "$0.05 per Instant message, Tweet, or Facebook update"

The Tax Freedom act does not prohibit things such as Sales Tax on real or digital goods, and taxing the providers' profits.... Internet-based transactions are still subject to tax; it's the internet connectivity itself that is protected.

Comment Re:Just a thought... (Score 1) 287

Rejected, per the observation that there is evidence of discrimination against women when gender is identified.

Not so sure that it is evidence of discrimination to say At the same time, when the gender of the women is identifiable (as opposed to hidden), their pull requests are accepted less often than men's.

Look at the graph in the paper.... we're talking about a less than 5% difference; actually, the confidence intervals may be very close to overlapping: a bit hard to see on the graph.

You would think they would include a statistical analysis for that result in the paper as well, but I suspect it could be more of an afterthought.

Comment Re:The science is not settled (Score 1) 554

Science is settled, up until new measurements or better data or new models mean that the science needs to be revisited.

Settled does not mean 'dormant' or 'waiting for better data'; settled implies beyond reproach. If it's capable of being revisited, then obviously it was not really settled in the first place....

Settlements, at least in court, reflect a permanent condition. e.g. You paid such and such debt and agree to never speak of the matter again.

They occur when all potential claimants or opponents sign in blood to other side's view. But the work involved with science is multi-generational, so in 20 years, some new guy could always come up with a new idea, and disprove the earlier theory with an experiment.

Comment Re: The science is not settled (Score 1) 554

We evolved from apes. The science is settled.

I think you just proved my point by quoting a fact that the science does not support. Humans did not evolve from apes or any currently living species of primate.

If by settled, you mean that no new evidence can ever arrive to replace those theories, then also false.

The Earth goes around the Sun. The science is settled. Anthropogenic Warming is happening. The science is settled.

The Earth goes around the Sun can be plainly observed. ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHERS

Note that your description is not very precise though, which also tends to limit its usefulness in terms of making predictions.

Also, there is a great deal more reasonable doubt regarding Anthropogenic Warming. Both in the Science.... and see Stefan Molyneux on reasons to doubt the work-product of climate scientists. The problem is both accidental/unintentional and intentional political manipulation of the outcome of Scientific results on a broad scale.

And, we as a civilization have need for much more truly independent work on the subject of environmental issues, with no incentives or disincentives (including fame/popularity) of scientists to come up with specific answers........

Comment Re:The science is not settled (Score 1) 554

What's unscientific about it? It's not a mathematically perfect sphere, but it is absolutely round.

The gist of the shape is understood, and detailed measurement calculations and topological information are available regarding much of earth's surface.

Describing the observation shape in detail has become more of a mathematical classification question than a scientific problem.

Of course, we know that locally, the planet is not very round over short distances... it is not tightly curved at a scale which humans can ordinarily imagine on a daily basis.

Comment Re:The science is not settled (Score 1) 554

You'll never get 100 percent on any subject. If that's your standard nothing will ever be settled.

Newtons laws of motion were ironclad seeming truth for hundreds of years, until Maxwell and Einstein's work demonstrated they were wrong, and provided new frameworks.

If you think you are 100 percent about any subject in basic science, Then you probably have almost certainly have errors or flaws in what you think on that subject.

And for the record, the Flat Earth Society is extremely skeptical of claims of anthropogenic global warming.

The Flat Earth Society is not a scientific organization.... they are not taking observations or performing any experiments that could be used to prove their own society wrong or revise their beliefs to make them more accurate. If they do prove themselves wrong, they are not prepared to listen to the result. Their organization should have dissolved itself by now if they were scientific..... so there is something strangely religious and dogmatic about them; Flat Earth Society is more like a cult than a legitimate scientific or academic entity.

Comment Re:The science is not settled (Score 1) 554

Space time can be curved.

This is not settled science. Scientists are generally in agreement with it. However, there are times in the past in which things everyone generally agreed with, turned out to be incorrect, or requiring revision.

The possibility that 'space time can be curved' relies on predictions from complicated models regarding what space time is. It is possible that new experiments, observations, and evidence, will require later changes to those models. The necessary revisions might eliminate the possibility that space time can be curved; a phenomenon we have observed may have another better explanation which is more-predictive of important things observed in reality and not currently understood.

The earth orbiting the sun.

Again, practicing scientists have come to a general agreement in principle that the earth orbits the Sun, there are plenty of observations and evidence to support this, and it is generally accepted. However, it is possible that some point in the future, new evidence will come to light, showing that the earth actually is not in perfect orbit around the sun, and it is also in loose orbit around some other object, or has movement varying between orbiting the sun and following a different path at different times.

The earth being round.

The general public and practicing scientists generally are all in agreement that the earth's shape is roundish.

That does not mean the science is settled however. It is possible that new work will be done and new evidence will come to light regarding earth's shape that will give an alternative to it being round.... perhaps semi-round.

Comment The science is not settled (Score 5, Insightful) 554

Anyone that tells you the science is settled is not a scientist.... they are a politician wanting to shutdown inquiry on an issue and install dogma in its place.

Science is not dogma, and if someone who is a scientist tells you that "The science is settled"; that is really just their personal opinion on the topic, And it should be taken to assume that the research results they produce might be accidentally (or maliciously) biased to reflect results consistent to the bit of science they would claim to be "settled".

Slashdot Top Deals

My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells down by the seashore.

Working...