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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Slick or sick (Score 1) 139

The US has a habit of setting bad precedents these days and that is especially true of drone assassinations. Now every country will want a drone fleet, and we have given them all the excuses they need to employ them to "kill terrorists". Of course, like us, they will be the ones who decide what a terrorist is. UK courts just decided that journalists should not be considered terrorists, indicating that we are in a world of hurt when that question even comes up.

How can the US complain when other countries deploy drones to "kill terrorists"? It can be done much cheaper than our drone program, and with much less high-end technology. You just need a video camera on an RCA big enough to carry an explosive payload. What goes around comes around. But then again, I am sure that is the whole point. The US wants instability, or we wouldn't be forcing regime change all over the place. I can't imagine that the government hasn't figured out that regime change leads to conflict, civil war and refugee crises. In fact, it happens every time.

Comment Re:Slick or sick (Score 1) 139

Agreed. The US is no longer occupying the moral high ground. We only attack countries that can't defend themselves, and then when someone tries to strike back with a terrorist attack we act shocked. Personally, I believe that the US is trying to instigate more terror attacks in order to justify our obscene military budget and aggression around the world. It's job security for the military-congressional-defense contractor complex. They should at least be honest and change the name from the "defense dept." to either the "offense dept." or the "war dept.". We aren't defending anything, but we sure are attacking lots of things.

Comment Re:Slick or sick (Score 1) 139

You can Google this too.

Our government says that virtually no civilians are killed by drones, and we know from as far back as Vietnam that the military lies when it comes to casualties and deaths. If they want to make it sound like the war is going well, they boost the number of enemy killed. If they want to make the drone program sound precise, they lie about the civilian casualties. That's their business model.

Comment Re:Slick or sick (Score 4, Informative) 139

There are many articles about the poor ratio of intended targets vs. "collateral damage" or civilian deaths.

But you know that because you can Google too.

The US now prefers killing poor people in 3rd world countries with robots. Not very brave or noble. Not very good for our standing in the world. Not good for poor people in 3rd world countries.

In fact, it isn't good for anyone but defense contractors.

Comment Re:Good? (Score 1) 230

What makes you think that other countries want to nuke the US? Please explain. I have heard nothing about this from any source. What would they gain by nuking the US, destroying the world economy, and spreading radiation around the globe? Please, I would love to hear your explanation about how we need to modernize our nuclear arsenal to prevent this from happening. Obama is saying he wants to spend a trillion dollars to revamp our nukes, and you apparently agree. Silly. Just plain silly. No one is going to nuke us, even if we didn't have any nukes. Spending that kind of money that way is pure boondoggle, and you know it. It is a massive government handout to GE and their buddies in the nuke business.

Comment Re:Good? (Score 1) 230

It is so funny you think that the US is about to be attacked, and that it is only because we have nuclear weapons that we haven't been, and won't be. It is hard to understand how people can be that silly. MAD was from a very different time that I lived through in the 50s and 60s, and as far as I can tell, Russia and China aren't about to nuke us now, and wouldn't nuke us if we retired all our nuclear weapons. But it's a free country so you can spew all the nonsense you like. I'm sure you think you sound tough, but you really just sound silly. I realize /. is full of conservatives, but this is ridiculous.

Comment Re:Good? (Score 1) 230

Please, don't be fawning about the US nuclear weapons and how we take care of them, and pretend that we would be attacked if we didn't have them. Pure nonsense.

The nuke guys were all caught cheating on tests.

We have lost nukes and sent them accidentally across the country, and had all sorts of problems that show we don't "maintain them well"..

I am sure you know all this, but you are hoping that no one else knows or is paying attention. They will never be used because they are not needed, and can't be used. They are not stopping Russia or China from attacking us because Russia and China have no intention of attacking us. This kind of utter nonsense has to stop. I thought we were supposed to be smarter than that here at /. No country is about to attack the US, and it has nothing to do with the fact that we have nukes. Stop the idiocy.

Comment Re:Good? (Score 0, Troll) 230

Like most weapons systems that will never be used, this is another example of the US taxpayer getting shafted by defense contractors. Fallout limited? That is pure nonsense. Face it folks, we keep getting fleeced by the government and their buddies in the "defense" industry. This is another in a long string of wasteful expenditures for hardware that will sit unused until we have to pay to dismantle them 50 years from now. Stop acting like weapons are cool. They aren't. That money could be spent on fixing our busted infrastructure if you push your representatives to stop wasting so much money on weapons and war.

Submission + - Contradicting previous study, cancer risk has strong environmental component (

The Real Dr John writes: A new study published in the journal Nature provides evidence that intrinsic risk factors contribute only modestly (less than ~10–30% of lifetime risk) to cancer development in humans. The researchers found that the more stem-cell divisions that occurred in a given tissue over a lifetime, the more likely it was to become cancerous. They said that though some cancers clearly had strong outside links – such as liver cancers caused by hepatitis C or lung cancer resulting from smoking – there were others for which the variation was explained mainly by defects in stem-cell division.The researchers showed that the correlation between stem-cell division and cancer risk does not distinguish between the effects of internal (genetic) and external (environmental) factors such as chemical toxicity and radiation.They also found that the rates of endogenous mutation accumulation by internal processes are not sufficient to account for the observed cancer risks. The authors conclude that cancer risk is heavily influenced by environmental factors.

Submission + - How brain architecture leads to abstract thought

catchblue22 writes: UMass Amherst scientists have used data analysis of fMRI data to link brain architecture with consciousness and abstract thought.

"We momentarily thought our research failed when we saw that each cognitive behavior showed activity through many network depths. Then we realized that cognition is far richer, it wasn't the simple hierarchy that everyone was looking for. So, we developed our geometrical 'slope' algorithm."

"With a slope identifier, behaviors could now be ordered by their relative depth activity with no human intervention or bias," she adds. They ranked slopes for all cognitive behaviors from the fMRI databases from negative to positive and found that they ordered from more tangible to highly abstract."

"Deep learning is a computational system employing a multi-layered neural net...the brain's processing dynamic is far richer and less constrained because it has recurrent interconnection, sometimes called feedback loops" Her lab is now creating a "massively recurrent deep learning network," she says, for a more brain-like and superior learning AI.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan