Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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:More US warmongering (Score 1) 755

Well, considering that none of us can know what happened for sure, and any claims by any side could be attributed to mere propaganda, all we can do is hypothesize and estimate probabilities... I think there are following possibilities out there

  1. Syrian army actually did that.
    1. with knowledge of Syrian high command
      1. sanctioned by Russian high command
      2. without Russian involvement
    2. attack was unauthorized by the Syrian command
      1. Syrian government was aware of illegal stockpiles of chemical weapons (so it is still partly to blame)
      2. Goverment was not aware, it was a rogue attack by a rogue party within Syrian army
  2. It was a false flag attack aimed to blame Syrian goverment
    1. Covert operation by anti-Assad coalition
      1. Saudi Intelligence
      2. CIA
      3. Turkey
      4. Other
    2. ISIS
    3. Other Anti-Assad terrorists (use of chemical weapons means it was terrorists, not freedom fighters or something like that)
  3. Accidental release (due to bombing of a storage, for example)
  4. It was never a chemical attack but everyone is claiming it was
  5. Some other explanation

A-priori all these scenarios were equally likely. As time goes on, we should expect to come to the only most likely case.

You are claiming it was definitely 1.a.i., USA officials do not blame Russia directly, so it is 1.a.ii according to them

Russian and Syrian official claim it was either 3 or 2.a

So given those claims 1.a, 2.a or 3. would probably have 90+% probability with others to be rather negligible.

Now considering that it was not in interests of Assad or Russia to provoke any additional international critisism, I would say 1 has less than 20% chance, I would put most of my money on 2.b or 2.c.

Comment Re:The self-driving car is blamed for human error (Score 1) 227

Re: blaming the software for...

I would not blame software for anything but inevitable bugs in the software. Just think, this software is in its testing stage, wouldn't you agree that it may have bugs? As far as conspiracy theories go, I would rather blame the police for covering up a corporate mishap here.

Comment Re:Heads-up Texas Holdem (Score 1) 164

"...every time we find a weakness, it learns from us and the weakness disappears the next day."

Let's not underestimate the power of learning at damn near an exponential rate.

It does not look like AI learning at exponential time. It looks like nightly patches to a program to remove discovered exploits. Let us wait until "the weakness disappears immediately without any human intervention".

Comment Re:Its winner take all, not electoral college. (Score 1) 1069

Yeah, as I heard over radio, Clinton winning popular vote is rather misleading. Popular vote and electoral vote are orthogonal to each other.

It is akin to saying after a football game that one of the football teams won by yardage rather than by scoring the points. The game would be entirely different if the teams were trying to get more yardage instead of points...

And you cannot change the game rules after the game is over either.

Comment Re:News Flash! (Score 1) 1430

Trump won under the current voting rules. You cannot change rules after the vote to let some other candidate win. By changing the rules in the midair, you can even make a case that Gary Johnson won (by weighing certain voters to be zero or something).

I agree with you point that the current rules may not be fair. Then we need to change them and use updated rules in the next election. You cannot change them and apply updated rules to this election retroactively.

GP's point was that under updated rules Trump still had a chance (to win by popular vote) if he chose to spend more time campaigning in California. He did not simply because it did not make sense under current rules.

Comment Science used to be an art form (Score 4, Insightful) 116

Some time ago tenure system was devised to protect researchers who explore new paths. They could not be fired just because they seemingly accomplish nothing for years for a chance that they may suddenly revolutionize their field or something.

Nowadays universities in USA have turned into money making businesses which are all focused on whether a professor can bring grants or profitable patents disregarding long term benefits for exploring new paths.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.