Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Of course they did (Score 0) 255

by micahraleigh (#48766905) Attached to: FCC Favors Net Neutrality
I'll bite on this. People think net neutrality will enable them to watch and pirate more Game of Thrones. That right there explains 30% of the content on .\

Ordinary people don't care about net neutrality because they aren't draining the world's bandwidth ... but they should because they are paying for it as if they were.

Comment: Re:not real (Score 1) 109

Who said anything about communication? Quantum effects travel instantaneously. That's (part of what) spooked Einstein.

I would expect quantum and gravitational effects to travel at the same speed viz. Ockham's razor.

A more complex explanation could model it, but something more would be needed to persuade me.

Comment: Re:Again... (Score 1) 278

by micahraleigh (#48698077) Attached to: Snowden Documents Show How Well NSA Codebreakers Can Pry
"The prior administration LIED"

All caps has the distinct connotation of trying to ram something down people's throats.

I'm not ready to swallow that Bush told us something he didn't himself believe ("It's not a lie if you believe it" cf. G. Costanza), but if I could do that how is our current WH exempt from:

(1) having the IRS agitate against people for one side of political beliefs and not the other

(2) broad, open warrants

(3) ordering the Syrian embassy security to an artificially low level (Paris had more security on deck)

And then call all of these things "phony scandals"?

I think you are using all capital letters because you realize you are in a little over your head here with your claims.

Comment: Re:How Would That Work Legaly? (Score 1) 187

by micahraleigh (#48676389) Attached to: Argentine Court Rules Orangutan Is a "Non-Human Person"
As verbose as the law books are ... they leave a lot open to interpretation.

As they should.

For example: what is the difference between legally defined assault and a expression of free speech? (Btw, "assault" doesn't mean someone was actually hit, that's battery). The difference is whether or not a "reasonable person" would interpret an act intentionally threatening physical violence. There is no law book anywhere that defines how a "reasonable person" thinks and acts. Of course the question about whether reasonable people are happier remains open (I say "no").

So legal authority has really nothing to do with how things are defined by law.

If you are suggesting some kind of visible/empirical means must exist to draw the line (empirical is a fancy way of saying "judging by appearances", and empiricism is indistinguishable from sheer superficiality) you are looking for a visual confirmation of an invisible entity. You can't define "value" based on how court documents describe value, for example. Adam Smith laid it out perfectly when he said economics is driven by an invisible hand (i.e. you can't see what a consumer is thinking when they by something).

Human beings have had their rights taken away because they couldn't prove agency. This started during the French Enlightenment (circa 17th century) when people started making the first insane asylums.

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.

Working...