Only one error in 100,000 miles -- I'll take that in a heartbeat over the thoughtless people I drive beside each day. I guarantee the best drivers have more than 1 bug in 100K miles.
That one error in a 100,000 miles are referencing accidents caused by a software glitch. Unless all of those "thoughtless" people you mention are driving/riding one of these new cars, then it won't make a difference one bit. They'll still be a danger.
Even with this "new" car, if you are in the middle lane of traffic and somebody in an "old" car swerves into your lane, your "new" car doesn't have many options other than to brake. If it can brake quickly enough to avoid the person that cut you off, there is still the danger of the person behind you not in a "new" car.
Assuming the AI on such a vehicle really is good enough to use, there is no real safety increase unless most drivers are driving the new vehicle. So, how long will it be before a 125 million of these cars are built and sold?
That seems to be an improvement over our human drivers. Will the car be allowed to text message while driving however?
I don't know where you live or how you drive, but I've driven well over 450,000 miles in my life and have never had an accident that I was at fault. According to the insurance institute, my experience is not unique. A predicted crash every 100,000 miles per vehicle would mean really high insurance rates, but hey, at least you can text and ride. I wonder if DWI will still apply?
It might be possible if we could demonstrate ten years with semi-automatic driving. Have a computer in control most of the time with a human as backup. But I frankly don't believe that a self driving car can come close to dealing with all the corner cases involved in driving on public roads.
Although a semi-automatic self driving car will cause the actual drivers to be less attentive and probably cause more accidents. We don't even allow engineer-less trains outside of very specific conditions, and they can only go only go where the tracks lead them.
Because the airport demands $130 for a week of parking, and I live 15 miles from it ? Because it's going to [place] to pick up a person. (possibly me, possibly a person with no drivers license) Because it's delivering an item, and the recipient can unload it ?
A hundred and one simple reasons.
And all of those taxi and delivery drivers who will be out of work can become the workforce that builds the new cars, right? Of course, they'll probably have to move to Japan.
BTW, if you are only 15 miles from the airport, why not just take a cab instead of paying for parking? As for going to a place to pick up a person, who will inspect the vehicle between trips to make sure nothing funny went on in the back seat, or even if a passenger got sick? And what shipper will send a package of any value to a recipient when there is no way to verify the delivery was to the correct person?
The funny thing is that they can't be thoroughly tested if they aren't actually *allowed* on the road.... and even if they got special permission for limited testing only, the company could be running tests for centuries without a single accident to their system's credit, and still never achieve any more public confidence, simply owing to the fact that they would not yet be in widespread use, and the lack of accidents could be always readily attributed to their rarity, not their reliability.
The only way they could ever *begin* to gain public acceptance is if the public is actually given the freedom to choose to utilize them.
But, why should they gain public acceptance in the first place?
I'm more afraid of the 80 years old, cutting you out on the very last moment.
Of course the actual percentage of 80 year old drivers to total drivers is quite low as the average life expectancy is still below 80. On the other hand all of those 16 year old kids is a different story. I would be more concerned with how a robotic car will decide to avoid either the on coming vehicle or the pedestrian, assuming it cannot stop in time.
You will be supporting "free speech", and people will take it too far, because, frankly, people are immature assholes when they believe they can't be caught.
That may be true, but implementing a solution that allows individual subscribers to black-list those ids you don't want to be bothered with would solve that problem. Say you are on a news site and every time there is a politics story somebody rants and raves about . If you could block postings from that userid, then you wouldn't have to be bothered by them. Facebook does this now for feeds. Don't like all those farmville notices, just block them. In implementing this, then the user/reader determines what he or she reads and gets updates from.
While allow moderating on comments is useful, it is far from ideal. Too strict of a moderator and nothing worthwhile gets through. Too lenient, then so much garbage gets through that it is next to useless. While I would maintain moderation of comments, I would propose the following system.
First, no anonymous comments. If you are wanting to enter into an actual discussion, then who is discussing should be identifiable.
Second, to entered into a discussion should require one to be registered on the site hosting the discussion. This is related to the first point. Some boards allow you to type in a nickname and email address each time you want to join a discussion. That is basically the same as allowing anonymous comments. Registration may not prove who you are, but at least ties your comments to an identifiable, albeit unknown, person. For protection of the individual, however, the registration system should allow them to keep their data private (ie email address). As such, once a real person has been registered and verified (simple email message/reply), then their online persona exists. You may never know who DcnJoe60 is (my id on/.), but you should know that whoever I am, I always use the same id.
Third, and finally, current moderation systems are simply informational. What is really needed is the ability to blacklist comments from people you don't want to hear from. If you think that DcnJoe60 is just a big blowhard, you should be able to tell the "system" to ignore or not show comments by DcnJoe60. If, on the otherhand, you really like the ideas that DcnJoe60 throws out there, you should be able to tell the "system" to bubble up those comments.
With those three steps, people have the right and ability to say pretty much whatever they want (freedom of speech), but the reader also has the right and ability to only see the comments they choose to. In such a system then, the moderators only need to look at big picture items such as acceptable use (no spam, no vulgarity, or whatever).
This is how things have been discussed for centuries. If we are at the corner pub, the fact that we see each other, even if we do not know each other's real name, removes anonymity. Each of us is free to say what is on our mind. Each of us is also free to enter into or leave the conversation. The barkeep acts as the moderator, keeping fights from breaking out, and other such tasks.
Yahoo groups comes close to this model if you receive individual emails. You may or may not know who a specific individual really is, but you can tie their posts together (step 1 - no anonymity). Step 2 is straight forward, people are registered, at least on most groups. Step 3 is also. For individuals who always post stuff that I don't want to hear/read, there is the delete key (if occasional posters) or create a rule to filter them out.
Yahoo groups does this through downloads. However, the topic is really about online forums. There are no real obstactles, technology wise, from doing this with an online system. The hardest would be the blocking feature, but even Facebook allows for that. What is really needed is taking the already available pieces from wherever they have been implimented and put them together for a complete solution.
I don't know if I'd call that civil war, more like dissension in the ranks, or mutiny or barratry, and a greater than average amount of anarchy.
Now if you wanted to see Anonymous in Civil War, you should hear the Boxxy story. She managed to divide the indivisible.
That's the problem with anarchists. They don't think they should have to play by the rules, are even opposed to playing by the rules. But let one of their own spread anarchy amongst their own group and then they tout a different ideology.
Seeing that some people use Constitutional rights as an argument against my guns analogy, I am amending it as follows:
Cars can be used to commit crimes too. For example, to transport stolen goods, even to kill people. So does making and selling cars make you punishable for contributing to those crimes?
Let's not forget the government's culpability for building a road to drive the car on in the first place.
since neither Alki David or his failing company FilmOn do not own ANY of the content their talking about, what right do they have to sue? This is a publicity stunt to try and bolster his idiotic idea for streaming TV on mobile devices thats clearly doomed to failure from the start.
I look forward to streaming TV on mobile devices. The courts have already ruled that pulling programming off the airwaves and copying for personal use is not a copyright infringement (ie. recording radio broadcasts) and it is allowable for anyone with a receiver to receive that airwave broadcast.
However, what will be interesting is whether or not the FCC will have jurisdiction over streaming media. Currently, cable only programming, that which is not actually broadcast, escapes the FCC regulations. However, a cell tower or wifi base station is not cable and is definitely broadcast over the air. Does that mean if they stream HBO or even USA Network, it then falls under the FCC jurisdiction?
Let's sue Ford and GM next, because they are the primary means for obtaining vehicles that are used in crimes. Using the reasoning that is being used against limewire/p2p, then the automakers also have direct participation. Let's not rule out the firearm manufacturers.
Making software available that has a legitimate use, should not make the distributor liable if somebody chooses to use it for illegitimate purposes. Limewire is a software tool, just as a crowbar is a tool. If I use a crowbar to change a flat tire, that is a proper use. If I use it to bash somebody's head in, that is not. In either case, the crowbar is just a crowbar. It didn't commit any crime, a person did.
There is a slogan for the NRA that goes something like "Guns don't kill people, people do." Maybe the software industry should say "P2P doesn't steal content, people do."
my supposition is also absurd because the milky way itself is "moving" (orbitting?), in relation to other galaxies. there is no fixed point we are moving against
however, it is a slightly intriguing possibility, no? that say, some fundamental constant we take for granted as constant actually might vary slightly across a 250 million year period... for some reason. wouldn't that be interesting? yes, this is wild conjecture, but you could certainly sit around and construct a few "what ifs" that would suggest such a possibility. even though we aren't remotely able to ask serious science questions about such a hypothetical periodicity to... something, right now in our scientific maturity
at least the thought is the basis for some perhaps compelling speculative science fiction, if not real science
Definitely would work for science fiction, but the possibility is so remote as to be virtually 0. It is not just our solar system that is revolving in our galaxy which is revolving in our universe. All the other galaxies are also revolving, plus the distance between the galaxies is changing which would make the angles between the galaxies different today than they were 237 million years ago. Even the stars we see in the night sky are in different positions than they were 2000 years ago (and not just because of the earth's wobble).
This is not to say that some gamma burst from some distant galaxy could not hit us (or even from something in our own galaxy). But the likelihood for it to occur on schedule every 237 milliion years is statistically zero. Much more likely is that something in another part of our galaxy or another galaxy which is constantly streaming radiation, like a giant pulsar or black hole or something yet to be discovered, will swing around and we will go through it's path. Much as the comet that hit Jupiter. The comet always followed that path, Jupiter just happened to be in the right place at the right time.
"The Sun orbits around the center of the galaxy in a galactic year—once every 225-250 million Earth years."
has there ever been any research into odd or bad events in our geological record that occur with 237 million year frequency?
because right now, at this moment, we are plowing through space we haven't plowed through in 237 million years. what the hell are we hitting? everything from asteroids to comets to various kinds of background radiation to fundamental particles could potentially vary periodically, according to this 237 million year loop
yes, i take solace that most stuff around us is orbiting right along with us
but not all of it
It's not just the sun that orbits the center of the galaxy, but the entire solar system, including all of the rest of the solar systems. So assuming they are all rotating at the same rate in relationship to each other, then there isn't any new space to be plowing through.
Put differently, whatever was in the space we currently occupy 237 million years ago has also moved away and is occupying different space. Now if your concern is some rogue comet or something that passes through this spot every 237 million years and is not affected by the gravity of the other bodies in the galaxy, well that risk would be extremely small. The likelihood of a single object (or even multiple ones) in an orbit around the center of the galaxy but in a different plane that would intersect with our solar system at the same time every 237 million years, while not impossible, it certainly improbably.
Even a radiation burst from a distant star or pulsar aimed directly this way every 237 million years would require the distant object to be stationary compared to our solar system moving through it to be able to hit the same spot every 237 million years.
In short, it's not that our solar system is revolving around the center of the milky way galaxy every 237 million years, it is that the entire milky way galaxy is revolving around its center every 237 million.
So, in summary, your argument is that because some things which display altruistic behaviour are pre-programmed, ALL things which display altruistic behaviour are pre-programmed?
No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that because something which is preprogrammed to display altruistic behavior (whether intentional or not), means that you cannot extrapolate that behavior onto living organisms that have not been demonstrated to have been preprogrammed.
The article proposes that altruistic behavior evolved in a few generations. But the preprogramming for such behavior was there from the beginning. Unless one wants to take the leap of faith, so to speak, that all creatures that show altruistic behavior have been preprogrammed to do so, then the conclusions gained in the article cannot be substantiated.
Specifically, the bots were programmed to maximize their genetic code by seeking discs (food). However, in real evolution, starting from pre living replicating molecules to simple single cell organisms, that evolved into complex life forms of today, there was no pre programming to maximize genetic code by seeking food. While it is interesting that the altruistic behavior developed in the bots so earlier, it is only because of external conditions set by the bots "creators."
I do not mean to start an argument about whether God exists or not. I am only pointing out that the bots have a known creator that endowed them with certain capabilities and pre programmed responses. None of which has ever been proven to be in the real world. In short, the researchers own biases led to this outcome.
Now, if they had taken a bunch of amoebas and placed them in a petri dish and after a hundred generations or so, the amoebas demonstrated altruistic behavior, that would be different. Even if they took a number of frogs or even mice, that would be different. But to say that a computer program, which has defined inputs and mechanisms, led to altruistic behavior is now the rational for how altruistic behavior evolved in the real world is definitely not supportable by if p then q.
These virtual machine robots are computer programs. So, are they, the robots, actually developing altruistic behavior or are the original program(s) somehow biased to include that behavior? I would posit that what is being "seen" is not some simple evolutionary trait, but an artifact of bias installed in the original programming.
If you program a device to seek out the possibilities that garner the greatest success, regardless of how that success is defined, won't the device act based on it's programming? Now, if somehow these virtual machine robots are changing their programming as they go, that would be impressive. Of course, being computer simulations, even that feat would be based on the biases imposed in their original programming.
Even in nature, the simplest organisms, like bacteria, amoebas, etc. don't exhibit this altruistic behavior. Even more complex organisms don't exhibit this behavior and they have been around a lot longer than a few hundred generations of the study.
The result of the study seems to indicate that altruistic behavior develops when an organism (such as the virtual machine robot) is programmed that way by it's programmer. Of course, then that begs the question for those organisms in real life that exhibit the altruistic behavior, who programmed them?
I am confused. Are you saying that up until now, that the brain was not thought to inherit capabilities from the parents? For instance if both parents had an aptitude for math or spacial abilities and so did the child, it was just a fluke? I guess what I am saying is if it was already known that characteristics from the parents are inherited by the other organs of the body, why would it not be expected the same thing happens with the brain?
I am not talking about differentiation, but actual objective characteristics. People with a history of heart disease in the their family tend to have a higher risk for heart disease. People with a history of breast cancer in their family tend to have a higher risk for breast cancer. People with tall parents tend to be tall, people with short parents tend to be short. Why would we not expect "brain" characteristics to follow similar correlations? From my reading, that is what it sounds like the part quoted is saying is somehow new.
Lead author Dr. Alex Fornito from the Neuropsychiatry Centre at the University of Melbourne said the findings have important implications for understanding why some people are better able to perform certain tasks than others and the genetic basis of mental illnesses and some neurological diseases
On a related note, researchers determined that various organ systems in the body have a genetic link as to their functioning. This opens insight to diseases such as diabetes, cancer and heart disease.
The summary ignores that the NSA mentions both Windows and OS X and what to do to protect it. It could be that between both of those they 99% of desktop users are covered in the USA. The article doesn't really address servers and maybe the NSA feels that if you are using Linux or BSD you are either a) already protected or b) have the smarts to protect yourself anyway.
I guess for the conspiracy theorist on slashdot there is an option C: Microsoft is behind the NSA and the ploy is to get Windows and OSX secured so that Linux and BSD would be blamed for any breaches.
Slashdot Mirror
Only one error in 100,000 miles -- I'll take that in a heartbeat over the thoughtless people I drive beside each day. I guarantee the best drivers have more than 1 bug in 100K miles.
That one error in a 100,000 miles are referencing accidents caused by a software glitch. Unless all of those "thoughtless" people you mention are driving/riding one of these new cars, then it won't make a difference one bit. They'll still be a danger.
Even with this "new" car, if you are in the middle lane of traffic and somebody in an "old" car swerves into your lane, your "new" car doesn't have many options other than to brake. If it can brake quickly enough to avoid the person that cut you off, there is still the danger of the person behind you not in a "new" car.
Assuming the AI on such a vehicle really is good enough to use, there is no real safety increase unless most drivers are driving the new vehicle. So, how long will it be before a 125 million of these cars are built and sold?
a crash "only once every 100,000"
That seems to be an improvement over our human drivers. Will the car be allowed to text message while driving however?
I don't know where you live or how you drive, but I've driven well over 450,000 miles in my life and have never had an accident that I was at fault. According to the insurance institute, my experience is not unique. A predicted crash every 100,000 miles per vehicle would mean really high insurance rates, but hey, at least you can text and ride. I wonder if DWI will still apply?
It might be possible if we could demonstrate ten years with semi-automatic driving. Have a computer in control most of the time with a human as backup. But I frankly don't believe that a self driving car can come close to dealing with all the corner cases involved in driving on public roads.
Although a semi-automatic self driving car will cause the actual drivers to be less attentive and probably cause more accidents. We don't even allow engineer-less trains outside of very specific conditions, and they can only go only go where the tracks lead them.
Are you kidding ?
Why should a car move without a person in it ?
Because the airport demands $130 for a week of parking, and I live 15 miles from it ? Because it's going to [place] to pick up a person. (possibly me, possibly a person with no drivers license) Because it's delivering an item, and the recipient can unload it ?
A hundred and one simple reasons.
And all of those taxi and delivery drivers who will be out of work can become the workforce that builds the new cars, right? Of course, they'll probably have to move to Japan.
BTW, if you are only 15 miles from the airport, why not just take a cab instead of paying for parking? As for going to a place to pick up a person, who will inspect the vehicle between trips to make sure nothing funny went on in the back seat, or even if a passenger got sick? And what shipper will send a package of any value to a recipient when there is no way to verify the delivery was to the correct person?
The funny thing is that they can't be thoroughly tested if they aren't actually *allowed* on the road.... and even if they got special permission for limited testing only, the company could be running tests for centuries without a single accident to their system's credit, and still never achieve any more public confidence, simply owing to the fact that they would not yet be in widespread use, and the lack of accidents could be always readily attributed to their rarity, not their reliability.
The only way they could ever *begin* to gain public acceptance is if the public is actually given the freedom to choose to utilize them.
But, why should they gain public acceptance in the first place?
I'm more afraid of the 80 years old, cutting you out on the very last moment.
Of course the actual percentage of 80 year old drivers to total drivers is quite low as the average life expectancy is still below 80. On the other hand all of those 16 year old kids is a different story. I would be more concerned with how a robotic car will decide to avoid either the on coming vehicle or the pedestrian, assuming it cannot stop in time.
you will have trolls.
No two ways about it.
You will be supporting "free speech", and people will take it too far, because, frankly, people are immature assholes when they believe they can't be caught.
That may be true, but implementing a solution that allows individual subscribers to black-list those ids you don't want to be bothered with would solve that problem. Say you are on a news site and every time there is a politics story somebody rants and raves about . If you could block postings from that userid, then you wouldn't have to be bothered by them. Facebook does this now for feeds. Don't like all those farmville notices, just block them. In implementing this, then the user/reader determines what he or she reads and gets updates from.
While allow moderating on comments is useful, it is far from ideal. Too strict of a moderator and nothing worthwhile gets through. Too lenient, then so much garbage gets through that it is next to useless. While I would maintain moderation of comments, I would propose the following system.
First, no anonymous comments. If you are wanting to enter into an actual discussion, then who is discussing should be identifiable.
Second, to entered into a discussion should require one to be registered on the site hosting the discussion. This is related to the first point. Some boards allow you to type in a nickname and email address each time you want to join a discussion. That is basically the same as allowing anonymous comments. Registration may not prove who you are, but at least ties your comments to an identifiable, albeit unknown, person. For protection of the individual, however, the registration system should allow them to keep their data private (ie email address). As such, once a real person has been registered and verified (simple email message/reply), then their online persona exists. You may never know who DcnJoe60 is (my id on /.), but you should know that whoever I am, I always use the same id.
Third, and finally, current moderation systems are simply informational. What is really needed is the ability to blacklist comments from people you don't want to hear from. If you think that DcnJoe60 is just a big blowhard, you should be able to tell the "system" to ignore or not show comments by DcnJoe60. If, on the otherhand, you really like the ideas that DcnJoe60 throws out there, you should be able to tell the "system" to bubble up those comments.
With those three steps, people have the right and ability to say pretty much whatever they want (freedom of speech), but the reader also has the right and ability to only see the comments they choose to. In such a system then, the moderators only need to look at big picture items such as acceptable use (no spam, no vulgarity, or whatever).
This is how things have been discussed for centuries. If we are at the corner pub, the fact that we see each other, even if we do not know each other's real name, removes anonymity. Each of us is free to say what is on our mind. Each of us is also free to enter into or leave the conversation. The barkeep acts as the moderator, keeping fights from breaking out, and other such tasks.
Yahoo groups comes close to this model if you receive individual emails. You may or may not know who a specific individual really is, but you can tie their posts together (step 1 - no anonymity). Step 2 is straight forward, people are registered, at least on most groups. Step 3 is also. For individuals who always post stuff that I don't want to hear/read, there is the delete key (if occasional posters) or create a rule to filter them out.
Yahoo groups does this through downloads. However, the topic is really about online forums. There are no real obstactles, technology wise, from doing this with an online system. The hardest would be the blocking feature, but even Facebook allows for that. What is really needed is taking the already available pieces from wherever they have been implimented and put them together for a complete solution.
I don't know if I'd call that civil war, more like dissension in the ranks, or mutiny or barratry, and a greater than average amount of anarchy.
Now if you wanted to see Anonymous in Civil War, you should hear the Boxxy story. She managed to divide the indivisible.
That's the problem with anarchists. They don't think they should have to play by the rules, are even opposed to playing by the rules. But let one of their own spread anarchy amongst their own group and then they tout a different ideology.
It also works quite well on netbooks with 1gb or ram, using the KDE netbook interface.
Of course they just released a new version of KDE. Ubuntu shipped last month.
Seeing that some people use Constitutional rights as an argument against my guns analogy, I am amending it as follows:
Cars can be used to commit crimes too. For example, to transport stolen goods, even to kill people. So does making and selling cars make you punishable for contributing to those crimes?
Let's not forget the government's culpability for building a road to drive the car on in the first place.
since neither Alki David or his failing company FilmOn do not own ANY of the content their talking about, what right do they have to sue? This is a publicity stunt to try and bolster his idiotic idea for streaming TV on mobile devices thats clearly doomed to failure from the start.
I look forward to streaming TV on mobile devices. The courts have already ruled that pulling programming off the airwaves and copying for personal use is not a copyright infringement (ie. recording radio broadcasts) and it is allowable for anyone with a receiver to receive that airwave broadcast.
However, what will be interesting is whether or not the FCC will have jurisdiction over streaming media. Currently, cable only programming, that which is not actually broadcast, escapes the FCC regulations. However, a cell tower or wifi base station is not cable and is definitely broadcast over the air. Does that mean if they stream HBO or even USA Network, it then falls under the FCC jurisdiction?
Let's sue Ford and GM next, because they are the primary means for obtaining vehicles that are used in crimes. Using the reasoning that is being used against limewire/p2p, then the automakers also have direct participation. Let's not rule out the firearm manufacturers.
Making software available that has a legitimate use, should not make the distributor liable if somebody chooses to use it for illegitimate purposes. Limewire is a software tool, just as a crowbar is a tool. If I use a crowbar to change a flat tire, that is a proper use. If I use it to bash somebody's head in, that is not. In either case, the crowbar is just a crowbar. It didn't commit any crime, a person did.
There is a slogan for the NRA that goes something like "Guns don't kill people, people do." Maybe the software industry should say "P2P doesn't steal content, people do."
my supposition is also absurd because the milky way itself is "moving" (orbitting?), in relation to other galaxies. there is no fixed point we are moving against
however, it is a slightly intriguing possibility, no? that say, some fundamental constant we take for granted as constant actually might vary slightly across a 250 million year period... for some reason. wouldn't that be interesting? yes, this is wild conjecture, but you could certainly sit around and construct a few "what ifs" that would suggest such a possibility. even though we aren't remotely able to ask serious science questions about such a hypothetical periodicity to... something, right now in our scientific maturity
at least the thought is the basis for some perhaps compelling speculative science fiction, if not real science
Definitely would work for science fiction, but the possibility is so remote as to be virtually 0. It is not just our solar system that is revolving in our galaxy which is revolving in our universe. All the other galaxies are also revolving, plus the distance between the galaxies is changing which would make the angles between the galaxies different today than they were 237 million years ago. Even the stars we see in the night sky are in different positions than they were 2000 years ago (and not just because of the earth's wobble).
This is not to say that some gamma burst from some distant galaxy could not hit us (or even from something in our own galaxy). But the likelihood for it to occur on schedule every 237 milliion years is statistically zero. Much more likely is that something in another part of our galaxy or another galaxy which is constantly streaming radiation, like a giant pulsar or black hole or something yet to be discovered, will swing around and we will go through it's path. Much as the comet that hit Jupiter. The comet always followed that path, Jupiter just happened to be in the right place at the right time.
Nope. Iron.
Well, it is still dark and it is still matter!
Well, if it is a coal mine, wouldn't you expect it to be full of dark matter? ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
"The Sun orbits around the center of the galaxy in a galactic year—once every 225-250 million Earth years."
has there ever been any research into odd or bad events in our geological record that occur with 237 million year frequency?
because right now, at this moment, we are plowing through space we haven't plowed through in 237 million years. what the hell are we hitting? everything from asteroids to comets to various kinds of background radiation to fundamental particles could potentially vary periodically, according to this 237 million year loop
yes, i take solace that most stuff around us is orbiting right along with us
but not all of it
It's not just the sun that orbits the center of the galaxy, but the entire solar system, including all of the rest of the solar systems. So assuming they are all rotating at the same rate in relationship to each other, then there isn't any new space to be plowing through.
Put differently, whatever was in the space we currently occupy 237 million years ago has also moved away and is occupying different space. Now if your concern is some rogue comet or something that passes through this spot every 237 million years and is not affected by the gravity of the other bodies in the galaxy, well that risk would be extremely small. The likelihood of a single object (or even multiple ones) in an orbit around the center of the galaxy but in a different plane that would intersect with our solar system at the same time every 237 million years, while not impossible, it certainly improbably.
Even a radiation burst from a distant star or pulsar aimed directly this way every 237 million years would require the distant object to be stationary compared to our solar system moving through it to be able to hit the same spot every 237 million years.
In short, it's not that our solar system is revolving around the center of the milky way galaxy every 237 million years, it is that the entire milky way galaxy is revolving around its center every 237 million.
So, in summary, your argument is that because some things which display altruistic behaviour are pre-programmed, ALL things which display altruistic behaviour are pre-programmed?
Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that because something which is preprogrammed to display altruistic behavior (whether intentional or not), means that you cannot extrapolate that behavior onto living organisms that have not been demonstrated to have been preprogrammed.
The article proposes that altruistic behavior evolved in a few generations. But the preprogramming for such behavior was there from the beginning. Unless one wants to take the leap of faith, so to speak, that all creatures that show altruistic behavior have been preprogrammed to do so, then the conclusions gained in the article cannot be substantiated.
Specifically, the bots were programmed to maximize their genetic code by seeking discs (food). However, in real evolution, starting from pre living replicating molecules to simple single cell organisms, that evolved into complex life forms of today, there was no pre programming to maximize genetic code by seeking food. While it is interesting that the altruistic behavior developed in the bots so earlier, it is only because of external conditions set by the bots "creators."
I do not mean to start an argument about whether God exists or not. I am only pointing out that the bots have a known creator that endowed them with certain capabilities and pre programmed responses. None of which has ever been proven to be in the real world. In short, the researchers own biases led to this outcome.
Now, if they had taken a bunch of amoebas and placed them in a petri dish and after a hundred generations or so, the amoebas demonstrated altruistic behavior, that would be different. Even if they took a number of frogs or even mice, that would be different. But to say that a computer program, which has defined inputs and mechanisms, led to altruistic behavior is now the rational for how altruistic behavior evolved in the real world is definitely not supportable by if p then q.
These virtual machine robots are computer programs. So, are they, the robots, actually developing altruistic behavior or are the original program(s) somehow biased to include that behavior? I would posit that what is being "seen" is not some simple evolutionary trait, but an artifact of bias installed in the original programming.
If you program a device to seek out the possibilities that garner the greatest success, regardless of how that success is defined, won't the device act based on it's programming? Now, if somehow these virtual machine robots are changing their programming as they go, that would be impressive. Of course, being computer simulations, even that feat would be based on the biases imposed in their original programming.
Even in nature, the simplest organisms, like bacteria, amoebas, etc. don't exhibit this altruistic behavior. Even more complex organisms don't exhibit this behavior and they have been around a lot longer than a few hundred generations of the study.
The result of the study seems to indicate that altruistic behavior develops when an organism (such as the virtual machine robot) is programmed that way by it's programmer. Of course, then that begs the question for those organisms in real life that exhibit the altruistic behavior, who programmed them?
I am confused. Are you saying that up until now, that the brain was not thought to inherit capabilities from the parents? For instance if both parents had an aptitude for math or spacial abilities and so did the child, it was just a fluke? I guess what I am saying is if it was already known that characteristics from the parents are inherited by the other organs of the body, why would it not be expected the same thing happens with the brain?
I am not talking about differentiation, but actual objective characteristics. People with a history of heart disease in the their family tend to have a higher risk for heart disease. People with a history of breast cancer in their family tend to have a higher risk for breast cancer. People with tall parents tend to be tall, people with short parents tend to be short. Why would we not expect "brain" characteristics to follow similar correlations? From my reading, that is what it sounds like the part quoted is saying is somehow new.
Since all organs share the same genes...... no. Good attempt at satire, just a few million miles short of the mark.
Wouldn't the brain share those same genes, too? As such, wouldn't brain structure also share genetic links, just like organ structure?
The majority of the wealthy may not be especially lazy, but they work no harder than the average working man.
For many of them, the wealthy do work harder than average. As for their offspring, that is an entirely different situation.
Lead author Dr. Alex Fornito from the Neuropsychiatry Centre at the University of Melbourne said the findings have important implications for understanding why some people are better able to perform certain tasks than others and the genetic basis of mental illnesses and some neurological diseases
On a related note, researchers determined that various organ systems in the body have a genetic link as to their functioning. This opens insight to diseases such as diabetes, cancer and heart disease.
The summary ignores that the NSA mentions both Windows and OS X and what to do to protect it. It could be that between both of those they 99% of desktop users are covered in the USA. The article doesn't really address servers and maybe the NSA feels that if you are using Linux or BSD you are either a) already protected or b) have the smarts to protect yourself anyway.
I guess for the conspiracy theorist on slashdot there is an option C: Microsoft is behind the NSA and the ploy is to get Windows and OSX secured so that Linux and BSD would be blamed for any breaches.