| Effort to End Oil Regulators’ Conflicts The federal agency that regulates offshore drilling is taking steps to end a long history of conflicts of interest and excessive coziness with the companies it is charged with policing. feeds.nytimes.com |
Oxford scientist calls for research on technology 'mind change' Brain researcher Susan Greenfield claims 'mind change' as a result of using modern technology is one of humanity's greatest threatsLady Greenfield reignited the debate over modern technology and its impact on the brain today by claiming the issue could pose the greatest threat to humanity after climate change.The Oxford University researcher called on the government and private companies to join forces and thoroughly investigate the effects that computer games, the internet and social networking sites such as Twitter may have on the brain.Lady Greenfield has coined the term "mind change" to describe differences that arise in the brain as a result of spending long periods of time on a computer. Many scientists believe it is too early to know whether these changes are a cause for concern."We need to recognise this is an issue rather than sweeping it under the carpet," Greenfield said. "We should acknowledge that it is bringing an unprecedented change in our lives and we have to work out whether it is for good or bad."Everything we do causes changes in the brain and the things we do a lot are most likely to cause long term changes. What is unclear is how modern technology influences the brain and the consequences this has."For me, this is almost as important as climate change," said Greenfield. "Whilst of course it doesn't threaten the existence of the planet like climate change, I think the quality of our existence is threatened and the kind of people we might be in the future."Lady Greenfield was talking at the British Science Festival in Birmingham before a speech at the Tory party conference next month. She said possible benefits of modern technology included higher IQ and faster processing of information, but using internet search engines to find facts may affect people's ability to learn. Computer games in which characters get multiple lives might even foster recklessness, she said."We have got to be very careful about what price we are paying, that the things that are being lost don't outweigh the things gained," Greenfield said. "Every single parent I have spoken to so far is concerned. I have yet to find a parent who says 'I am really pleased that my kid is spending so much time in front of the computer'."Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London and co-author of the book The Learning Brain, agreed that more research was needed to know whether technology was causing significant changes in the brain. "We know nothing at all about how the developing brain is being influenced by video games or social networking and so on."We can only really know how seriously to take this issue once the research starts to produce data. So far, most of the research on how video games affect the brain has been done with adult participants and, perhaps surprisingly, has mostly shown positive effects of gaming on many cognitive abilities," she said.Maryanne Wolf, a cognitive neuroscientist at Tufts University in Massachusetts and author of Proust and the Squid, said that brain circuits honed by reading books and thinking about their content could be lost as people spend more time on computers."It takes time to think deeply about information and we are becoming accustomed to moving on to the next distraction. I worry that the circuits that give us deep reading abilities will atrophy in adults and not be properly formed in the young," she said.NeuroscienceBritish Science Festival 2010British Science FestivalGamesSocial networkingInternetComputingIan Sampleguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Research shows 'Hobbit' deformed human, not new species The row over the so-called "hobbit" found on the Indonesian island of Flores has flared again. abc.net.au |
The number game Numerologists get a far better press than they deserve, but Matt Parker finds he has an unexpected empathy with themI like patterns. I only ever buy palindromic values of petrol because numbers such as £34.43 not only make me smile but are easy to spot on a bank statement. Humans have an innate love of patterns and our ability to exploit them has led to modern civilisation. People enjoy sudoku for the thrill of completing a puzzle and the same numerical patterns underpin modern information technology.So I was happy to talk to the Daily Mail about yesterday's date – 10/10/10. There is nothing inherently amazing about it; it's just a quirk of the fact that we divide the solar year into 12 months of which we're in the 10th (when we could have any number of months) and that the calendar we use was zeroed 2,010 years ago (which isn't the case in many other cultures). But there is still something satisfying about the time 10:10am and 10 seconds on 10/10/10. Just like I remember stopping at 1:23pm and 45 seconds on 6/7/89. And mark your calendar for later this month when the date will be 20/10/2010.Then I read the Daily Mail article last Friday and saw it also had comments from my nemeses: numerologists.If you want to irritate astronomers, call them astrologers. To see mathematicians get downright emotional, talk to them in earnest about numerology. According to numerologists, the satisfying 10/10/10 date is "not just a once in a 100 years quirk of the calendar", but rather, the numbers have deeper meaning. Just like how the numbers from the date you were born, the position of the letters of your name in the alphabet and even your house number, affect who you are and even predict the future. Which feels like a lot of meaning to attach to arbitrary numbers.As for what the number 10 actually means, the Mail asked Sonia Ducie, author of Numerology: Your Personal Guide For Life, who said: "Ten is the number for wisdom, because it contains the essence of all the numbers of one to nine within it."Firstly, one to nine are just the digits that we happen to use. They are the symbols we use to represent numbers. Any number, such as 36 for example, is the same number when it is written "normally" as 36 or in binary as 100100 or in base-five as 121. We happen to use base-10 numbers because we have 10 fingers to count on (also called digits); if humans had evolved with five fingers we'd probably write 36 as 121.Not only that, but I'm not sure exactly how 10 contains the essence of one to nine within it. It seems to be just because it is bigger than one to nine, which means that every number contains the essence of every number smaller than it. This is the kind of vacuous but sciencey-sounding effluent that gushes from purveyors of pseudoscience.As you can see, I'm now getting a bit emotional. Honestly though, I do have some empathy for numerologists because I'm driven by the same thirst for patterns and causality. As humans, we all are. Our craving for patterns and logic means that we tend to seek patterns where there are none; clutching at random straws. We selectively manipulate things to produce patterns. The date is a perfect example: we use "2010" sometimes and "10" at other times, depending on which looks nicer, we switch between 12- and 24-hour time to get the most aesthetic numbers. We remember the times when seven is lucky and ignore all the occasions when it isn't. It is science and mathematics that allow us to overcome this innate tendency to generalise and separate the spurious from the insightful; coincidence from causal.Our being wired to spot patterns and make connections allowed civilisation to develop, and our ability to rationally manipulate and exploit patterns has provided civilisation with all its life-changing technology. Everything from modern medicine to mobile phones and computers exists because we didn't just decide that 10 is the number for wisdom and call it a day. Without our species' passion for meaning and order being balanced by our capacity for logic we would have nothing. Not even a sudoku to pass the time.Matt Parker is based in the mathematics department at Queen Mary, University of London. His lucky number is 496.Matt blogs at Stand-up MathematicianMathematicsMatt Parkerguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Branson dedicates spaceport runway in NM desert By SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN 2010-10-22T23:37:30ZUPHAM, N.M. (AP) -- World's first commercial spaceport. Check. Solo flight of a rocket ship for tourists. Check. A runway in the southern New Mexico desert to help them climb to the heavens. Check.... hosted.ap.org |