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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:GM producers are shooting themselves in the foo (Score 1) 513

Correct. It is fraud to complain there is something wrong with it, and hence for government to mandate fraud.

Other, illogical concerns are not the government's perogative to force on people.

Religious issues aside, should government mandate kosher or not kosher labeling because some folks are concerned with that? Halal? No elves killed while making these cookies?

People concerned with GMO can search out products free of it.

Comment Re:GM producers are shooting themselves in the foo (Score 1) 513

"If we tell them what is and what is not GM, some people will refuse to buy the GM, even if they are not sure the non-GM is better."

Well, some others will choose to buy the GM, even if they are not sure the GM is better. Stupidity works both ways, you know?

I was under the impression that all this fuss about "free market" required "perfectly informed parties", right?

"It might even end up killing the GM industry"

And favoring the GM industry might even end up killing the Organic Foods industry. Didn't know it was some kind of government mandate to favor a side of an industry against any other.

The issue is government mandates. Government should have real science behind reasons for labelling (or banning.)

For that matter, a company voluntarily labeling "GMO-free" may be satisfying illogical consumer demand, but that is a scam.

Comment Re:Red Mercury = Wildly Batshit Insane (Score 1) 327

people who are wildly batshit insane keep yakking about the mythical "red mercury"

Or they watched Star Trek's "Red Matter" plot....

I immediately thought the opposite, that whoever wrote red matter into the plot was aping the legend of red mercury.

Hmmmm, I wonder what protomatter, which every ethical scientist has denounced as dangerously unpredictable, was aping.

Comment Re:Will Any Effort Be Made To Validate The Report? (Score 1) 399

That's the only problem I have with it, as long as police/judges treat the earlier reports with enough suspicion I don't have a problem with it.

There's no police here: this is about confidential, university investigations. One hopes that those investigators would actually contact those prior accusers as part of the investigation, but there are no formal rules of evidence for such panels, as there are for criminal investigations.

Of course, the penalties they can impose are also much less severe. There's no jail time. There's no public disclosure. The worst that can happen is expulsion, and the university will not report the reason for expulsion - beyond academic or conduct. Nor will the university disclose any records at all without the student's (ie, the sanctioned) approval.

The things you mention are life-wrecking government punishments. These things should go through real courts and not just "you KNOW he did it!" kangaroo courts.

The birthing of these lesser punishment half-assed government faux trial system needs to be crushed. Do it the real, constitutionally approved way.

Comment Re:If you don't like the textbooks, (Score 2, Interesting) 337

He pointed out taking the dollars with the child to pay for an alternative school, something many places do ready.

This is fought tooth and nail by big teacher union big government types to like to spout memes like hey you selfish jerk with privilege...! >:-(

Comment Re:Says you! (Score 1) 147

But as "printer", they don't have to say jack squat. The "wedding cake" lawsuits are shaping up this way -- a cake in general with two grooms, must do. With particular phrases, nope.

Both are instances of whether a private organization can decide whether or not to interact with a recipient of services in ways said organization does not desire to.

Either both should have this discretion or neither should have it. As believe it's generally wrong to force people to do things they don't wish to do (whether I support their reasons or find them reprehensible), I believe both Facebook and the wedding cake makers should have a choice. Both should also accept any public backlash resulting from the way they exercise this choice.

I agree with this. I am just stating the current law as I understand it. The expansive "interstate commerce" abomination, fortunately cannot touch the First Amendment. A law is a law is a law regardless.

In the cake case, I submit putting two grooms on it would rise to expression in any other context.

I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.