Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The basic question is answered...but still... (Score 1) 311

The field wouldn't exists without government grants for the research.

Are you suggesting that only private industry should be allowed to fund research? That would mean only research that could result in profits would be funded. That can't possibly be what you're saying, but considering your other notions, I can't rule out the possibility that's what you think.

Comment Re:What else would you have them do? (Score 1) 311

Australians have a choice to either pay more for adaptation or further reduce uncertainty.

False dichotomy. For the most part, they have chosen a third option: ignore the issue and expect it won't be much of a problem.

My money is on the third option. I don't think a lot of "adaptation" will be necessary.

Comment Re:It's official, you all live in a Dictatorship (Score 1) 183

A treaty supersedes all of the laws of the land, which is why it requires Congress to sign off on it, instead of a President's signature.

False. The Constitution is vague on the issue, saying that both treaties and the Constitution are "the law of the land". However, it's pretty clear that the Constitution only intended for treaties to deal with issues external to the United States (such as foreign trade).

In its only (to my knowledge) ruling which dealt with this issue, in regard to internal U.S. affairs, Reid v. Covert, SCOTUS ruled that the U.S. Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

The actual "supremacy clause" in the Constitution reads thus:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;

The phrases in pursuance thereof and under the authority of the United States clearly indicate that treaties may NOT supersede the Constitution. Because any such treaty, to be lawful, must be in pursuance of implementing the Constitution, and treaties must be made under the authority of the United States government, which is bound to uphold the Constitution.

So, NO. Claiming that a treaty supersedes internal U.S. laws or the Constitution is just false. It stems from a gross min-reading of the Supremacy Clause, and ignores past Supreme Court ruling on this issue.

The exception is when a State deals directly with foreign interests (such as international trade). In those cases, treaties do indeed supersede State laws on the matter, because the Federal government has all authority to deal with foreign governments and foreign trade. But that's a very narrow area.

Comment Re:The basic question is answered...but still... (Score 3, Insightful) 311

Technically, the climate scientists are the "friends" here, of the politicians who have latched onto this as the latest excuse to take your money and give it to their friends.

Wait. Let me try to wrap my head around this argument. You're saying that global warming is an excuse for politicians to steal our money so they can give it to climate scientists? Because climate scientists are their buddies?

I'm speechless. Gobsmacked. Utterly bereft of words to express the stupidity of this argument.

Let me read what you wrote again, in case I missed something and have got it wrong:

Technically, the climate scientists are the "friends" here, of the politicians who have latched onto this as the latest excuse to take your money and give it to their friends.

Nope. That's what you said. I think I need to sit down. This level of stupidity is giving me vertigo.

Comment Re:Math is a Chore (Score 1) 184

I've seen some of the posted problems that target common core as absurd and what I saw was ingenious problems that teach problem solving

My sentiments exactly. I stumbled on some blog post that was lambasting common core and when I got to the actual example that illustrates the author's premise, I was like, that's actually a really good problem and a fantastic way to teach kids math. Realizing that this is what people are bitching about regarding the common cold curriculum, my faith in humanity eroded just a little bit more.

Comment Re:Economics is a social science (Score 1) 311

Some economists can very accurately be called scientists because they use the scientific method and economics is quite properly categorized as a social science.

If this is enough for you to say Economics is a science, then it is the softest science of all. Parapsychology (and I'm absolutely serious about this), is based more on data and scientific rigor than economics. Psychology is many times more rigorous than Economics. Fucking Gender Studies is more rigorous and data-based than Economics.

I'm guessing you don't actually know any real economists.

I am probably the only Slashdot user who has actually taken a course from Milton Friedman. My views on the pseudoscience of Economics is based on 30 years experience having economists as colleagues, friends, neighbors and lunchmates. I have played in a weekly poker game with economists. I lived next door to a Nobel-nominated economist for years back in Chicago. I watched Superbowl XLI with him and had to explain what it means to arbitrage a point spread that has moved 10 points.

Plus, if you read any Economics articles, you will find that their math is very unimpressive, and even suspect.

Comment Re:And, will the Martians stop driving? (Score 2, Interesting) 311

And, since we know Mars and Venus are also getting warmer, it must be the Martian's fault.

If I'm getting warmer because of a fever, and the chicken breast in my oven is also getting warmer, they must be related or neither is really getting warmer. CHECKMATE AL GORE!

Delete your account you stupid fuck.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success. -- Christopher Lascl