As Joe Katzman says, it’s hard to know whether this should be comforting, or frightening:
Within fifty generations of this electronic evolution, co-operative societies of robots had formed – helping each other to find food and avoid poison. Even more amazing is the emergence of cheats and martyrs. Transistorized traitors emerged which wrongly identified poison zone as food, luring their trusting brethren to their doom before scooting off to silently charge in a food zone – presumably while using a mechanical claw to twirl a silicon carving of a handlebar moustache.
You might be upset by this result, scientific proof that those who say “Evil is utterly fundamental to human nature” actually understates the scope of the problem, there were also silicon souls on the side of the angels. Some robots advanced fearlessly into poison zones, flashing warning lights to keep other robots out of harms way.
This seems to be congruent with Axelrod’s work. I wonder if the successful ones use Tit for Tat?
It’s funny how so many liberals have become “realists” of late, insisting that we can’t expect to cajole sovereign nations into doing what we think is right if it’s not in their interests, but the same liberals insist that if we hobble ourselves with the dull-rusty axe of cap-and-tax, our example will inspire other nations to do likewise. Yes, yes, liberals will likely say that fighting global warming is in these nations’ interest, but they just don’t realize it. Well, maybe. But who are we to tell these countries what their interests are? Isn’t that the sort of imperial hubris these folks usually denounce? Regardless, there’s zero evidence and sub-zero reason to believe that countries such as China and India will ever be inspired by our action on global warming.
As he says, W-M may not accomplish much, but at least it’s expensive.
The state is in fiscal collapse, so the California legislature is doing what it does best–finding new things to regulate….
…If it becomes law, AB 627 would require low-fat or skim milk to be served to children 2 years old and older. It would limit sugar in cereals and eliminate deep frying and sweetened drinks. It also would establish an 18-month pilot project to evaluate stronger nutrition and physical activities standards.
What’s really appalling about this is (like many legislative mandates) it’s based on junk science. I’m aware of zero evidence that childhood obesity is caused by whole milk (or dietary fat in general). They should definitely try to reduce the carbs, but I think that kids’ biggest problem is lack of exercise. If they moved more, they would burn off the sugar, the way we did when we were kids.