Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:how useful is this? (Score 1) 307

From the abstract:

Because of the infeasibility of studying this phenomenon experimentally, it is unclear whether the association can be causally attributed to marijuana use itself or is instead the result of confounding factors. We approach this issue quasiexperimentally using longitudinal samples of adolescent twins.

Wonder if there are any twin studies that detail the life outcomes of stoner/non-stoner twins? That would be more useful I think.

We used a quasiexperimental approach to adjust for participants’ family background characteristics and genetic propensities, helping us to assess the causal nature of any potential associations. Standardized measures of intelligence were administered at ages 9–12 y, before marijuana involvement, and again at ages 17–20 y. Marijuana use was self-reported at the time of each cognitive assessment as well as during the intervening period. (no drug test to confirm usage or non-usage?) Marijuana users had lower test scores relative to nonusers and showed a significant decline in crystallized intelligence between preadolescence and late adolescence.

Why did you stop there?

Evidence from these two samples suggests that observed declines in measured IQ may not be a direct result of marijuana exposure but rather attributable to familial factors that underlie both marijuana initiation and low intellectual attainment.

In other words, it is likely other factors in a person's life (like the home environment) that is causing the IQ decline noted in some studies. The people with a crappy home life are also more likely to smoke marijuana so the IQ decline was showing up in marijuana studies. But since we don't see the effect in twins where one smoked and one didn't we don't think it is the MJ causing it.

Comment Re:10 yrs out with robotics (Score 1) 875

Apple will be assembling productsin the US within 10 yrs, using robotics, but it won't help employment rates because it will all be robotics based.

Why do you hate the Robotic poor so much? How can they move up to the Robotic middle class without access to well paying Robotic jobs? Or do you have a hidden hate for the 1% Robotic overlords?

You're totally right, we should triple the robotic minimum wage!

Comment Re:Does it have to be the whole booster? (Score 1) 118

And if you compare the first stage of spaceX with something like Adeline - which was what I compared - then you can definitely make an economic (better) case for the latter.

Yes, but you're comparing something that is currently flying to something that has absolutely no flight hardware developed. Adeline is just a dream in some CAD designer's mind at this point. Once they actually develop something (they are saying 2025 for first flight, so count on 2030 or later) then you can make comparisons but until then there is nothing to compare.

Comment Re:I Am All For It! (Score 1) 289

Getting rid of phone numbers could get rid of bullshit phone sales people or so-called telemarketers, nonsense charities, and bill collectors. Since I uusally get several annoying such calls, every day, I think getting rid of phone numbers is a great idea.

So you are trusting an advertising company (Facebook) to get rid of people marketing stuff to you? Good luck with that!

Comment Re:Ugh - What did law enforcement do before?? (Score 1) 556

Not to mention that the "killing of two people" was the deaths of the people conducting the attack. The attackers shot up a police car, hitting a security guard in the ankle, then they were both killed by return fire. No innocents were killed in the attack and the only (non-jihadist) injury was to the security guard. There is no evidence that an encryption backdoor would have changed anything, they are complaining that they couldn't read this guy's messages after he was already dead.

Law enforcement and US intelligence already have unprecedented data on every person in the US, hell most of the people voluntarily carry a tracking device so the government can know where they are at all times. They can read every email and record every telephone conversation. But even with the massive amount of intel they have on everybody they still want MORE. They will never be satisfied until every person is under their complete control every minute of the day. At least in 1984 Winston Smith had a place in his apartment where he could get out of view of the telescreen, these days people don't have such luxury. Also, we have always been at war with Eastasia.

Comment Re: You think Hillary is tech-smart? (Score 0) 452

She is also a criminal. How inthe world could you vote for her? Not that i particually like anyone running on the republican line but, to my knowledge none has been proven to disregard their oath of office as hillary has done with her email server.

That's because the frontrunners for the Republican nomination (Trump, Carson) have NEVER held public office. Hard to disregard your oath if you never take one.

The server was set up so she can do all her dirty business deals outside the eyes of the federal watchdogd. A complete disregard of the law. She tried to hide her pay Bill to get favors criminal act. Not to mention the clintons history of anti women anti law pratices. Bill hangs out and visits known sex traficers . He went to the island but did not know what was going on . Please

Too incoherent to even respond to.

Comment Re:I liked it more before.... (Score 1) 233

People don't vote against their self interest, take welfare for example there are two kinds of people that voted for it, the ones who will benefit from it and the others who feel good about themselves for doing so. In my experience it is impossible to vote against your self interest it's just that people value different things more then others.

It depends on what issue they are voting. For example, many poor religious people will vote for a candidate because he is against abortion or gay marriage but are voting against their own financial self-interest as the candidate may be against many welfare/aid programs that would benefit them. A large number of voters are single-issue or single-party voters and the representatives they end up with often are working against their interests, even though the representative aligns with their views on their hot-button issue.

Comment Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score 5, Insightful) 1134

I guess it could minimize fatalities, but I'm thinking of a bunch of armed people firing at each other in a relative small place and wondering if as many people would end up struck by "friendly" bullets as by the mass shooters.

Your imagination doesn't match reality.

Given how media favors gun control, every single incident where a citizen killed bystanders with "friendly fire" would be widely reported on as evidence for guns causing more harm than good.

Instead, there is silence on that topic because citizens using guns in self defense save lives.

When "highly trained" police officers shoot nine innocent civilians when trying to shoot a suspect, what are the chances that Joe Blow (who hasn't been to the range since he got his concealed carry permit) will avoid collateral damage?

Comment Re:I don't think... (Score 1) 411

(Full disclosure: I am neither 5'10" nor born in 1972).

The atheist reader who is 5'10" and was born in 1972 is probably looking over his shoulder thinking "how did he know... ?"

(Full disclosure: can't be me; I'm just over 5'11").

No, because atheists are good at separating coincidence from purpose. Someone who is religious or spiritual might think it is "spooky" and believe that the OP has ESP but the atheist will know that it is just happenstance. It isn't atheists that are being featured in news stories about being bilked out of thousands of dollars by psychics.

Comment Re:CIA IS Right Wing (Score 1) 298

Precisely, when you have supporters and opponents of this law on both sides and crossing party lines. While most GOP candidates seem to be for it, Ron Paul is not alone, and is supported at least by Ted Cruz here. What I want to know is that of the Dems, who opposes the wiretaps? Clinton? Obama? Bernie? O'Malley?

At the very least, Bernie

"He has introduced S. 1168, the “Restore Our Privacy Act,” to amend the PATRIOT Act to curtail overly broad surveillance by the government."

Comment Re:The real insult (Score 1) 387

NASCAR is a sport the same way two idiots punching the living shit out of each is.

Just because it is stupid doesn't imply it not a sport.

If you have a winner/loser, and viewers, it is a sport (regardless of how dumb it is.)

So if I'm playing football in the park with friends and nobody is watching, it's not a sport? But somehow the same activity becomes a sport the minute a non-player shows up?

Slashdot Top Deals

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.