Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: But not climate change research (Score 3, Funny) 77

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?

Comment Re:Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich (Score 1) 827

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.

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 1) 410

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?

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 1) 410

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.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/a...

"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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It doesn't much signify whom one marries for one is sure to find out next morning it was someone else." -- Rogers

Working...