daddymymouthisfullofstars

missyperegrym:

"There’s been a lot of negative energy going on at this school, okay? So I want to talk to you guys a little bit about dancing. Now back in the ’50s and the ’60s and the ’70s people used to dance all the time. That’s how they solved their problems. Through dance. Then all of a sudden we stopped dancing. Grunge came in, we dressed in plaid and oversized jeans. Then later on kids wore trenchcoats and shot each other in school and that’s not cool. But guess what! Guess what’s going on in high schools now? Kids are dancing again. They’re doing organized choreographed dances to solve their problems.”

mindblowingscience
mindblowingscience:

Ethical trap: robot paralysed by choice of who to save

Can a robot learn right from wrong? Attempts to imbue robots, self-driving cars and military machines with a sense of ethics reveal just how hard this is
CAN we teach a robot to be good? Fascinated by the idea, roboticist Alan Winfield of Bristol Robotics Laboratory in the UK built an ethical trap for a robot – and was stunned by the machine’s response.
In an experiment, Winfield and his colleagues programmed a robot to prevent other automatons – acting as proxies for humans – from falling into a hole. This is a simplified version of Isaac Asimov’s fictional First Law of Robotics – a robot must not allow a human being to come to harm.
At first, the robot was successful in its task. As a human proxy moved towards the hole, the robot rushed in to push it out of the path of danger. But when the team added a second human proxy rolling toward the hole at the same time, the robot was forced to choose. Sometimes, it managed to save one human while letting the other perish; a few times it even managed to save both. But in 14 out of 33 trials, the robot wasted so much time fretting over its decision that both humans fell into the hole. The work was presented on 2 September at the Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems meeting in Birmingham, UK.
Winfield describes his robot as an “ethical zombie” that has no choice but to behave as it does. Though it may save others according to a programmed code of conduct, it doesn’t understand the reasoning behind its actions. Winfield admits he once thought it was not possible for a robot to make ethical choices for itself. Today, he says, “my answer is: I have no idea”.
As robots integrate further into our everyday lives, this question will need to be answered. A self-driving car, for example, may one day have to weigh the safety of its passengers against the risk of harming other motorists or pedestrians. It may be very difficult to program robots with rules for such encounters.
But robots designed for military combat may offer the beginning of a solution. Ronald Arkin, a computer scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, has built a set of algorithms for military robots – dubbed an “ethical governor” – which is meant to help them make smart decisions on the battlefield. He has already tested it in simulated combat, showing that drones with such programming can choose not to shoot, or try to minimise casualties during a battle near an area protected from combat according to the rules of war, like a school or hospital.
Arkin says that designing military robots to act more ethically may be low-hanging fruit, as these rules are well known. “The laws of war have been thought about for thousands of years and are encoded in treaties.” Unlike human fighters, who can be swayed by emotion and break these rules, automatons would not.
"When we’re talking about ethics, all of this is largely about robots that are developed to function in pretty prescribed spaces," says Wendell Wallach, author ofMoral Machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. Still, he says, experiments like Winfield’s hold promise in laying the foundations on which more complex ethical behaviour can be built. “If we can get them to function well in environments when we don’t know exactly all the circumstances they’ll encounter, that’s going to open up vast new applications for their use.”
This article appeared in print under the headline “The robot’s dilemma”

Watch a video of these ‘ethical’ robots in action here

mindblowingscience:

Ethical trap: robot paralysed by choice of who to save

Can a robot learn right from wrong? Attempts to imbue robots, self-driving cars and military machines with a sense of ethics reveal just how hard this is

CAN we teach a robot to be good? Fascinated by the idea, roboticist Alan Winfield of Bristol Robotics Laboratory in the UK built an ethical trap for a robot – and was stunned by the machine’s response.

In an experiment, Winfield and his colleagues programmed a robot to prevent other automatons – acting as proxies for humans – from falling into a hole. This is a simplified version of Isaac Asimov’s fictional First Law of Robotics – a robot must not allow a human being to come to harm.

At first, the robot was successful in its task. As a human proxy moved towards the hole, the robot rushed in to push it out of the path of danger. But when the team added a second human proxy rolling toward the hole at the same time, the robot was forced to choose. Sometimes, it managed to save one human while letting the other perish; a few times it even managed to save both. But in 14 out of 33 trials, the robot wasted so much time fretting over its decision that both humans fell into the hole. The work was presented on 2 September at the Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems meeting in Birmingham, UK.

Winfield describes his robot as an “ethical zombie” that has no choice but to behave as it does. Though it may save others according to a programmed code of conduct, it doesn’t understand the reasoning behind its actions. Winfield admits he once thought it was not possible for a robot to make ethical choices for itself. Today, he says, “my answer is: I have no idea”.

As robots integrate further into our everyday lives, this question will need to be answered. A self-driving car, for example, may one day have to weigh the safety of its passengers against the risk of harming other motorists or pedestrians. It may be very difficult to program robots with rules for such encounters.

But robots designed for military combat may offer the beginning of a solution. Ronald Arkin, a computer scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, has built a set of algorithms for military robots – dubbed an “ethical governor” – which is meant to help them make smart decisions on the battlefield. He has already tested it in simulated combat, showing that drones with such programming can choose not to shoot, or try to minimise casualties during a battle near an area protected from combat according to the rules of war, like a school or hospital.

Arkin says that designing military robots to act more ethically may be low-hanging fruit, as these rules are well known. “The laws of war have been thought about for thousands of years and are encoded in treaties.” Unlike human fighters, who can be swayed by emotion and break these rules, automatons would not.

"When we’re talking about ethics, all of this is largely about robots that are developed to function in pretty prescribed spaces," says Wendell Wallach, author ofMoral Machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. Still, he says, experiments like Winfield’s hold promise in laying the foundations on which more complex ethical behaviour can be built. “If we can get them to function well in environments when we don’t know exactly all the circumstances they’ll encounter, that’s going to open up vast new applications for their use.”

This article appeared in print under the headline “The robot’s dilemma”

Watch a video of these ‘ethical’ robots in action here

mindblowingscience
mindblowingscience:

Final pieces to the circadian clock puzzle found

Researchers at the UNC School of Medicine have discovered how two genes – Period and Cryptochrome – keep the circadian clocks in all human cells in time and in proper rhythm with the 24-hour day, as well as the seasons. The finding, published today in the journal Genes and Development, has implications for the development of drugs for various diseases such as cancers and diabetes, as well as conditions such as metabolic syndrome, insomnia, seasonal affective disorder, obesity, and even jetlag.

"Discovering how these circadian clock genes interact has been a long-time coming,” said Aziz Sancar, MD, PhD, Sarah Graham Kenan Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics and senior author of the Genes and Development paper. “We’ve known for a while that four proteins were involved in generating daily rhythmicity but not exactly what they did. Now we know how the clock is reset in all cells. So we have a better idea of what to expect if we target these proteins with therapeutics.”
In all human cells, there are four genes – Cryptochrome, Period, CLOCK, and BMAL1 – that work in unison to control the cyclical changes in human physiology, such as blood pressure, body temperature, and rest-sleep cycles. The way in which these genes control physiology helps prepare us for the day. This is called the circadian clock. It keeps us in proper physiological rhythm. When we try to fast-forward or rewind the natural 24-hour day, such as when we fly seven time zones away, our circadian clocks don’t let us off easy; the genes and proteins need time to adjust. Jetlag is the feeling of our cells “realigning” to their new environment and the new starting point of a solar day.
Previously, scientists found that CLOCK and BMAL1 work in tandem to kick start the circadian clock. These genes bind to many other genes and turn them on to express proteins. This allows cells, such as brain cells, to behave the way we need them to at the start of a day.
Specifically, CLOCK and BMAL1 bind to a pair of genes called Period and Cryptochrome and turn them on to express proteins, which – after several modifications – wind up suppressing CLOCK and BMAL1 activity. Then, the Period and Cryptochrome proteins are degraded, allowing for the circadian clock to begin again.

"It’s a feedback loop," said Sancar, who discovered Cryptochrome in 1998. "The inhibition takes 24 hours. This is why we can see gene activity go up and then down throughout the day."
But scientists didn’t know exactly how that gene suppression and protein degradation happened at the back end. In fact, during experiments using one compound to stifle Cryptochrome and another drug to hinder Period, other researchers found inconsistent effects on the circadian clock, suggesting that Cryptochrome and Period did not have the same role. Sancar, a member of the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center who studies DNA repair in addition to the circadian clock, thought the two genes might have complementary roles. His team conducted experiments to find out.
Chris Selby, PhD, a research instructor in Sancar’s lab, used two different kinds of genetics techniques to create the first-ever cell line that lacked both Cryptochrome and Period. (Each cell has two versions of each gene. Selby knocked out all four copies.)
Then Rui Ye, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in Sancar’s lab and first author of the Genes and Development paper, put Period back into the new mutant cells. But Period by itself did not inhibit CLOCK-BMAL1; it actually had no active function inside the cells.
Next, Ye put Cryptochrome alone back into the cell line. He found that Cryptochrome not only suppressed CLOCK and BMAL1, but it squashed them indefinitely.
"The Cryptochrome just sat there," Sancar said. "It wasn’t degraded. The circadian clock couldn’t restart."
For the final experiment, Sancar’s team added Period to the cells with Cryptochrome. As Period’s protein accumulated inside cells, the scientists could see that it began to remove the Cryptochrome, as well as CLOCK and BMAL1. This led to the eventual degradation of Cryptochrome, and then the CLOCK-BMAL1 genes were free to restart the circadian clock anew to complete the 24-hour cycle.
"What we’ve done is show how the entire clock really works," Sancar said. "Now, when we screen for drugs that target these proteins, we know to expect different outcomes and why we get those outcomes. Whether it’s for treatment of jetlag or seasonal affective disorder or for controlling and optimizing cancer treatments, we had to know exactly how this clock worked.”
Previous to this research, in 2010, Sancar’s lab found that the level of an enzyme called XPA increased and decreased in synchrony with the circadian clock’s natural oscillations throughout the day. Sancar’s team proposed that chemotherapy would be most effective when XPA is at its lowest level. For humans, that’s late in the afternoon.
"This means that DNA repair is controlled by the circadian clock," Sancar said. "It also means that the circadian clocks in cancer cells could become targets for cancer drugs in order to make other therapeutics more effective."

mindblowingscience:

Final pieces to the circadian clock puzzle found

Researchers at the UNC School of Medicine have discovered how two genes – Period and Cryptochrome – keep the circadian clocks in all human cells in time and in proper rhythm with the 24-hour day, as well as the seasons. The finding, published today in the journal Genes and Development, has implications for the development of drugs for various diseases such as cancers and diabetes, as well as conditions such as metabolic syndrome, insomnia, seasonal affective disorder, obesity, and even jetlag.

"Discovering how these  genes interact has been a long-time coming,” said Aziz Sancar, MD, PhD, Sarah Graham Kenan Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics and senior author of the Genes and Development paper. “We’ve known for a while that four proteins were involved in generating daily rhythmicity but not exactly what they did. Now we know how the clock is reset in all . So we have a better idea of what to expect if we target these proteins with therapeutics.”

In all , there are four genes – Cryptochrome, Period, CLOCK, and BMAL1 – that work in unison to control the cyclical changes in human physiology, such as blood pressure, body temperature, and rest-sleep cycles. The way in which these genes control physiology helps prepare us for the day. This is called the circadian clock. It keeps us in proper physiological rhythm. When we try to fast-forward or rewind the natural 24-hour day, such as when we fly seven time zones away, our circadian clocks don’t let us off easy; the genes and proteins need time to adjust. Jetlag is the feeling of our cells “realigning” to their new environment and the new starting point of a solar day.

Previously, scientists found that CLOCK and BMAL1 work in tandem to kick start the circadian clock. These genes bind to many other genes and turn them on to express proteins. This allows cells, such as brain cells, to behave the way we need them to at the start of a day.

Specifically, CLOCK and BMAL1 bind to a pair of genes called Period and Cryptochrome and turn them on to express proteins, which – after several modifications – wind up suppressing CLOCK and BMAL1 activity. Then, the Period and Cryptochrome proteins are degraded, allowing for the circadian clock to begin again.

"It’s a feedback loop," said Sancar, who discovered Cryptochrome in 1998. "The inhibition takes 24 hours. This is why we can see gene activity go up and then down throughout the day."

But scientists didn’t know exactly how that gene suppression and protein degradation happened at the back end. In fact, during experiments using one compound to stifle Cryptochrome and another drug to hinder Period, other researchers found inconsistent effects on the circadian clock, suggesting that Cryptochrome and Period did not have the same role. Sancar, a member of the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center who studies DNA repair in addition to the circadian clock, thought the two genes might have complementary roles. His team conducted experiments to find out.

Chris Selby, PhD, a research instructor in Sancar’s lab, used two different kinds of genetics techniques to create the first-ever cell line that lacked both Cryptochrome and Period. (Each cell has two versions of each gene. Selby knocked out all four copies.)

Then Rui Ye, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in Sancar’s lab and first author of the Genes and Development paper, put Period back into the new mutant cells. But Period by itself did not inhibit CLOCK-BMAL1; it actually had no active function inside the cells.

Next, Ye put Cryptochrome alone back into the cell line. He found that Cryptochrome not only suppressed CLOCK and BMAL1, but it squashed them indefinitely.

"The Cryptochrome just sat there," Sancar said. "It wasn’t degraded. The circadian clock couldn’t restart."

For the final experiment, Sancar’s team added Period to the cells with Cryptochrome. As Period’s protein accumulated inside cells, the scientists could see that it began to remove the Cryptochrome, as well as CLOCK and BMAL1. This led to the eventual degradation of Cryptochrome, and then the CLOCK-BMAL1  were free to restart the circadian clock anew to complete the 24-hour cycle.

"What we’ve done is show how the entire clock really works," Sancar said. "Now, when we screen for drugs that target these proteins, we know to expect different outcomes and why we get those outcomes. Whether it’s for treatment of jetlag or  or for controlling and optimizing cancer treatments, we had to know exactly how this clock worked.”

Previous to this research, in 2010, Sancar’s lab found that the level of an enzyme called XPA increased and decreased in synchrony with the circadian clock’s natural oscillations throughout the day. Sancar’s team proposed that chemotherapy would be most effective when XPA is at its lowest level. For humans, that’s late in the afternoon.

"This means that DNA repair is controlled by the circadian clock," Sancar said. "It also means that the circadian clocks in cancer cells could become targets for cancer drugs in order to make other therapeutics more effective."

cracked
cracked:

One object, two powerfully different meanings.
4 Famous Movies With Deceptively Complex Symbolism

#4. The Bottle Flask in Children of Men
Clive Owen plays Theo Faron, a former activist who has become a drunken bureaucrat. Since the death of his son and subsequent divorce, he no longer cares about society. From his first introduction into the film, he carries a flask-shaped liquor bottle.
Later in the movie, Theo gets drawn into a resistance movement — that he must also flee — as he safeguards the life of perhaps the only pregnant woman on the planet. When that woman goes into labor, Theo must help deliver the child in a filthy room, and does his best to create a sanitary environment. After a quick wash, he pours out his liquor bottle to sterilize his hands. When Theo did not care about others, the flask-shaped liquor bottle represented drunk indifference, but as he begins to think of others, that same object becomes a symbol of compassion. It becomes a symbol of charity and commitment.

Read More

cracked:

One object, two powerfully different meanings.

4 Famous Movies With Deceptively Complex Symbolism

#4. The Bottle Flask in Children of Men

Clive Owen plays Theo Faron, a former activist who has become a drunken bureaucrat. Since the death of his son and subsequent divorce, he no longer cares about society. From his first introduction into the film, he carries a flask-shaped liquor bottle.

Later in the movie, Theo gets drawn into a resistance movement — that he must also flee — as he safeguards the life of perhaps the only pregnant woman on the planet. When that woman goes into labor, Theo must help deliver the child in a filthy room, and does his best to create a sanitary environment. After a quick wash, he pours out his liquor bottle to sterilize his hands. When Theo did not care about others, the flask-shaped liquor bottle represented drunk indifference, but as he begins to think of others, that same object becomes a symbol of compassion. It becomes a symbol of charity and commitment.

Read More