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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Getting rid of some of these accidents is hard (Score 1) 74

Sheer paranoia is a good preventative measure. I was once rear ended by an SUV coming down a hill at about 45 while I was stopped waiting to turn left. Getting slammed that hard just once was enough to make damn sure I look in my rear view mirror every time I stop any place where someone might possibly rear end me, ready to hit the gas if need be. What we need is an AI that does that from the get-go, without getting burned first.

Comment Re:Fewer, but more destructive (Score 2) 707

I don't think it's at all certain that quick and devastating nuclear strikes would amount to more dead than the conventional wars which nuclear weapons have made impossible. Approximately 60 million people were killed in World war II, or about 2.5% of the world population. "Only" approximately 150,000-246,000 of those dead were killed by atomic weapons.

If WWII is any indication, if a war were to break out with a nuclear-armed state, it would end abruptly. The bombed state(s) would either surrender in the face of certain destruction after the first bomb or two fell, or their military capacity would be so devastated by the strikes that they would be unable to mount an effective campaign.

Couple the brevity of a nuclear war with the higher number of potential combatants and civilians that would be killed in a conventional shooting/firebombing war, and the proportionally higher power of conventional weapons than in WWII, and it's not at all clear that nuclear weapons would increase the overall destructiveness of a major war.

It is clear, however, that major powers are loath to start a potential WWIII because of nuclear weapons, thus saving tens or hundreds of millions of lives. That's what the Cold War was about.

Comment Re:RoP (Score 1) 707

Yes, that is correct. The anti-birth-control, anti-abortion movements stem as much from a sociocultural condemnation of premarital and unprotected sex (primarily by Limbaugh's "sluts") as any religious proscription. A birth control/abortion ban is a way of controlling sex, particularly sex out of wedlock, which is a cross-cultural phenomenon all over the world that exists independently of religion. Religion is a means of codifying that cross-cultural pre-marital sex taboo, not the root of it.

Comment Re:Bad news for the dinosaurs (Score 1) 69

Since it occurred 40 million years ago, it must have killed off the dinosaurs.

If it's taken the light from the supernova 40 million years to reach Earth, then wouldn't it take any deadly radiation at least that long to reach us? The dinosaurs missed out on any possible threat from this explosion by about 40 million years.

Comment Re:Rudimentary (Score 5, Informative) 214

That's been illegal in the U.S. for cows for many years.

Not so. The FDA ban on feeding cattle protein to cattle excepts proteins derived from blood products and fat, and beef tallow is still used as a feed supplement at cattle farms. Also, since the bovine meat and bonemeal that used to be fed to cattle are still fed to other food stock like pigs and chickens - whose meal is, in turn, an accepted protein supplement for cattle - there is still a chance that infectious prions could find their way back into cattle (and us). Check out Michael Pollan's book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, for more info.

Slashdot Top Deals

Men take only their needs into consideration -- never their abilities. -- Napoleon Bonaparte