Improves search results for whom?
Improves search results for whom?
If your paper confirms climate change, you are more likely to get funding.
If your paper confirms that GMOs are as safe as mother's milk, you are also more likely to get funding. Also, if your study shows that vaccines are safe, you are more likely to get funding.
Are those examples of confirmation bias too?
But not climate change research it's the exception.
Other exceptions to this rule are studies that show GMOs are safe. Those scientists are impeccable, their studies well-designed and their research should never be questioned. Climate scientists, however, are the bunk.
This is VAT. Everybody pays VAT. Rich and poor. I know, that is a foreign concept to an American, but Sweden is not in America.
Except a tax break for repairs will disproportionately benefit the people at the lower end of the scale. Think it over.
The best nonviolent way of breaking North Korea is to let the common people know how the other Koreans live. We could try smuggling in flash drives, since the DPRK uses them to distribute official TV programming.
We could airdrop flashdrives hidden in frozen turkeys.
like what is happening in the vaping industry
"My box mod is made from Reardon metal!"
To encourage job growth?!?!
"Progressive" heads explode!
Until you figure out that the tax cut is not to corporations and the rich, but to regular people, and alt-right heads explodes instead.
So basically these developers are intolerant of any type of political message other than their own.
Unlike the people who have vowed to boycott the NFL because of something a backup quarterback did.
R6: Do not promote another candidate
R7: No negative campaigning
You believe that's the same thing as "no dissent or SJWs"?
Even a cursory look at that reddit shows that there's plenty of dissent. You're just not welcome if you're job is to shill for another candidate.
In the "TheDonald" reddit, "no dissent" means exactly that. If you have any divergent views (for example, if you support Trump but you don't believe Donald Trump Jr is a good surrogate for his father) you are gone.
No, they do not mean the same thing.
You do realize that
/r/hillaryclinton/ has the same rules, right?
No it doesn't. Go look for yourself.
Did you really think you could just put out a lie like that and nobody would check? Of course you did, didn't you?
Reddit's r/The_Donald, where one of the rules is "no dissenters"
That's everything you need to know, right there.
Nobody loves their "safe spaces" like the alt-right.
learn to internet pls
I went down the list of the first page of search results that you cited. Not one single example of an elected official saying they want to confiscate guns. You will find other people saying that "This Democrat wants to take your guns away from you" but that's it. Even the NY Safe Act only covered a very narrow type of weapon, and confiscation was not part of it.
Now, should I assume that you are being disingenuous, or did you just fail to read your own cites?
Yes, yes, I know you want a system of government where the voting of the ignorant unwashed peasants is just theater, and a few select royalty actually make the laws.
Hey, don't blame me. Blame the founding fathers. They're the ones put us in this mess.
Hawking is on the lower rung of great scientists
He's a mess and he has low ratings. He's a loser and at least an 8-handicap golfer. Sad! And what's with that voice, right? [imitates Stephen Hawking]
When I'm president, you can bet the aliens will know where we are.
Most of those "excepts": also blatantly unconstitutional. Convenient for the state. But unconstitutional
Maybe you never took Civics, but the Supreme Court decides what is and what is not constitutional so you see, when you say those things are "unconstitutional", you're simply wrong.
"While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution."
You might want a system different from the one we have, but it doesn't change the system we have.
"It doesn't much signify whom one marries for one is sure to find out next morning it was someone else." -- Rogers