I had the opportunity to attend a lecture when Richard Dawkins was speaking at the University of Oklahoma. Given the frequently religious nature of his conversations and his lineage in the concept of the "meme", I had wanted to ask a question. Unfortunately, I was not able to approach the microphone because several religious individuals had taken it upon themselves to annoy everyone with stupid questions. I am not saying that religious people are stupid, just that the questions that these particular individuals were asking(some were not questions) were rather stupid.

My question was heavily influenced by some recent reading, namely the "The Evolution of God", but also "Misquoting Jesus" and a few others. I wouldn't say that I loved Robert Wright philosophizing about some supernatural power guiding the evolution of religion, but the concept of evolution as an evolved social component intrigued me. This concept is not unexpected, as religions are simply ideas held by humans. The interesting argument made in "The Evolution of God" is that religion co-evolves with society, specifically to allow human society a mechanism of influence. This seems to reverberate with the classic idea that "religion is a tool of control", but the argument being made is that the control is unconscious and unguided.

I am curious what Prof. Dawkins thinks about the idea. Also, if we allow that religion is simply an evolved superstition that has provided some support to our social structure, then what would modifying this 'habitat'(for lack of a better term) mean for the world at large? In other words, would removing religion from society be a bit like causing the extinction of a keystone species? There are certainly ways to mitigate disaster, but without the species it is highly complex.

As an atheist myself, I have a great deal of respect for the position. I just don't know if human minds are capable of outwitting the incredibly complex evolutionary algorithm that produced the world's religions.

The problem is that the current high school curriculum is too specific to be generalized and too generalized to be useful. Math is generally acceptable, but most of the science is so poorly taught or so randomly taught that it is of no use at the University level.

So, we have a bunch of kids taking a chemistry class where we give them some busy work figuring out the number of molecules in a gram of carbon. Then we make them balance some equations. Rinse and repeat. This doesn't really help anyone. We then have them trying to teach to a random state test which may or may not be applicable.

Not disagreeing with the premise, but I would think it would be far more useful to teach much more open classes if the whole point of the class is to "open their eyes". Less focus on rout memorization and more focus on concepts, ideas, and learning. Teach them a little about reactions, teach them a little about the elements. Teach them some material science. Maybe throw in a bit else. Let the kids decide if they want to take a basic, advanced, or college credit course. They have to take one of them.

I have been reading about this all day, and I keep getting flummoxed by something. Am I not reading this correctly?

Genetically Modified(Roundup resistant) corn was fed to some rats
Normal Corn to a second group
Normal corn with Roundup to a third group

The GM corn group and the Roundup group had similar health problems. This makes sense, because the GM corn was probably sprayed with a lot of Roundup(why else would you grow it). Now, the conclusion everyone seems to make is that this proves that the GM corn causes health problems. It seems really odd that drinking Roundup or eating GM corn would cause nearly identical health problems. It makes more sense that Roundup caused problems in both samples, and the GM corn was rather meaningless. Even using that very cursory understanding of the research, it seems to me that the study has almost nothing to say about GM crops, yet "GM" is in the title of every article.

Yes, and other people stepped up to innovate. Apple doesn't have some magical innovation juice. They are just a company. If they want to get lazy, then talent will move elsewhere. You mentioned "multi-tasking", but that would have been something that required talented and competent engineers, not innovators. Innovation is something you come up with while half-drunk. Everyone understood how multi-tasking was supposed to work, it was just a matter of "making it work". Apple innovated in the same way that George Selden innovated(the patent holder to the automobile). He didn't exactly create the greatest car in the world, he just had the idea for a car. Henry Ford developed some of the greatest ideas in automotive history, but he did it all while violating Selden's patent.

The idea for these patents was developed with no technical expertise and in a short period of time. The development of the actual idea required hours or programming time and expertise. State-of-the-art is typically considered to be technology. Technology isn't developed in a focus group that determines that they like the "bouncey" ending the best. State-of-the-art is the brilliant programmer who makes it work, not the interesting idea.

Unless Samsung copied Apple's code, I don't think Apple has a leg to stand on. I don't know why it isn't quoted more often, but Selden had the patent on the "automobile" until Ford pointed out that while they had a 4-wheeled vehicle, they weren't using any of Selden's engine technology to propel it. Ford had Selden's patent claims thrown out.

Copying ideas is GOOD for everyone. Copying "technology" is bad. Samsung copied ideas, not technology.

Ok, and then should they also be required to track that? That can change day-to-day on most electronic components. They order transistors to spec, not from a specific country. So, they want a component that meets spec, they don't care who made it.

Also, should they keep track of where the original sub-components came from? The raw material? The ore for that raw material? No one keeps track of that? Fungibility is a bitch

I think it is important to point out that any analog between the modern USA and the Romans is flimsy at best. These two empires were entirely different in almost every imaginable way. They emerged at different rates, built their empires by different methods, had different social values, and were different in just about every way imaginable. The idea that parallels can be drawn between societies of the past fell out of fashion long ago, and unless you subscribe to the ideas of Arnold Toynbee I doubt you will find much traction with modern scholars.

Rome was a complex empire, and claiming that it's success or its failure can be linked to a single trait is ridiculous. Claiming that we should emulate that single trait is equally ridiculous. It is just an illusion to attempt to lend some historical significance to an OPINION that someone holds. Let us try to play this game a bit....

Rome had very free trade. Rome was economically very successful. Free Trade makes a country very successful.
Rome had slavery. Rome was economically very successful. Slavery makes a country very successful.
Rome had legal prostitution. Rome was economically very successful. Legal prostitution makes a country very successful.
Rome adopted Christianity right before the empire began to crumble. Christianity is bad for empires.

Macedonia(of Alexander the Great fame) was a state-controlled economy where the king controlled and owned almost everything. It was one of the most powerful empires and at one point the most powerful empire in the world because of its concentration of power with the king. Therefore we should follow their example and appoint a young and powerful king. This will give us the best of all possible empires. Thanks to this short exploration of history, we will now have the following country:
Free-trade
State-owned industry
Legal prostitution and slavery
A ban on Christianity
And a king(though he will be trained by the greatest philosophers)

Yeah....why didn't he compare google to facebook? Google is clearly acting like microsoft(another unprofitable company).
I mean, seriously, Facebook and Google are analogous. They both create a web page. It isn't as if one of the webpages(Google) is defined by patented technology while the other webpage(Facebook) is mostly just defined by copyright.

Also, they both have made software(wait, Facebook doesn't), so Google should be compared to these too. Don't you remember all of the facebook software?

All sarcasm aside:
At the end of the day, they are both advertising companies...but all webpages are advertising companies. There are 3 main types of web companies, those that create, those that innovate, and those that don't do either. Sites that produce content(every news site) are only as good as their content, and if that goes down the drain they fail. Companies that innovate(like Amazon and Google and Netflix) may not be producing content, but they are typically innovating new software and new ideas. This might be a new algorithm, a new bit of server tech, or a new content delivery method. These companies are as good as their innovation. The final category is those that neither are content producers or innovators, and these are your Facebooks and your Myspaces. They aren't actually doing anything but aggregating and serving regurgitated information. They might be really successful(like Slashdot), but at the end of the day someone can come along and surpass them just because they are more "popular"....and there is nothing that can be done about this because they aren't actually doing anything.

If you think I am wrong...name one "feature" that Facebook introduced that didn't exist in some way on some other site(perhaps identically).
Mark Zuckerberg doesn't scour the planet for the best minds to innovate or develop. It didn't take a genius to decide to add "photos" and "photo-tagging" to facebook. It just takes him looking at another site and saying "We should have flash games on facebook!!".

When you buy stock in Facebook, you are essentially betting that Facebook will remain popular for awhile longer. If people start leaving Facebook for something else, then Facebook cannot stop them(same thing happened to MySpace). Sure, you can add some features....but that doesn't bring back page views. If people stop using google search for something else, Google can improve their search results. If the search gets better, people use your product. Sure, popularity matters...but at least you have some competitive tool(Just look at what Microsoft is doing with Bing)

Given that Rand Paul frequently lumps so many things that are disconnected together(i.e Fed employees make more than the average American)....I don't think it is too bad that they got him confused with his Dad.

Note: The error with the Federal Employee comparison is that it would be more apt to compare Federal employment to a large company like 3M(with a large number of professional employees) than to compare it with the entire population of the country which has a high number of minimum wage employees and retirees.

The problem with this entire article is that it treats the google and siri as if they are two distinct technologies. They are not two distinct technologies. At their core, they are the same technology. The technology is evolving to be more intelligent, and I agree that this is the future of "search".

This is a bit like saying that we went from large servers with terminal access to personal wearable computers. This did occur, however, it didn't occur as a "step". It occurred as a natural evolution of the technology due to the shrinking of the physical size required for computing power. While someone speaking in 1968 may not have been able to foresee the iPad, they would have seen the progression of more powerful and smaller computers(Moore's Law for example). How this technology is used will always be a difficult guess. Most newer technology(within the past 5-10 years) has been re-hashing older ideas that were not executed "as well". The iphone, the tablet, touchscreen tech, digital paper, and even the MP3 player. The fact that technology will continue to evolve is a "fact". The idea that "Google" will be replaced with something like "Siri" is just a wild guess. I can say with absolute certainty that Google will continue to implement more information into determining search results to try to make them more accurate, as will all search providers. I don't know if we will all be using an app on our phone or a keyboard in the future, or maybe some unforeseen input technology. We will, however, still be looking outside of our immediate equipment for more information.

When are you going to realize that most of those websites don't require good passwords. Ars Technica requires a complex password to comment on an article. Why? Are you really worried that someone will waste the time to brute force crack your Ars Technica account and leave mean comments?

Gawker got hacked, but who cares? Just use 4321 as your password on a site like that. If you really want to go to the trouble of creating an 8-character truly-random password for a news site or a site like slashdot....good luck.

I own a cheap FM transmitter from China. It creates significant interference with GPS.
Considering that GPS is such a weak signal, it isn't surprising that accidental interference occurs. How are the sure that these were not cases of accidental jamming?

There is a difference between a fraudulent religion and a normal religion. Fraudulent doesn't mean that it isn't absolutely true. Fraud is intentional deception. The Pope believes in Catholicism. The Mormons leaders probably believe it too. The Republicans DEFINITELY believe it.

You also cannot prove any of these people wrong. Their main claim is a belief. An untestable and non-verifiable belief. You might find them to be incredibly WRONG, but that doesn't make them fraudulent.

Also, on the topic of things like acupuncture and others(homeopathic medicine, chiropractic medicine). The main crux of the argument against these isn't if they provide any good or "help people". The main argument against them by skeptics is that they are FULL OF CRAP as to how they work. Acupuncture claims it messes with one's qi. Qi doesn't exist. Zinc may actually help with some things, but not because it mimics the symptoms of a cold(which is what homeopathy claims).
Now, I think we could afford to be a bit more empirical with our medicine. If acupuncture does do some real and noticeable good, then we should use it. However, I think it is important to be clear that the previous notion of why it works is wrong. Why? So that it isn't misused.

Your concept is a bit flawed. Political positions are equally untenable, however they are frequently used to justify important and drastic actions.

Religion also exists for the explicit purpose of motivating human actions. There is not a religion in existence that does not advocate for specific human actions. The fact that you cannot prove the validity of any of these religions is irrelevant.

While I can understand your argument that people only use empirical information to reach rational conclusions and act rationally without bias....this is not human. Humans may be the most biased actors in the world. We currently live in a society that exists in a constant state of political debate between two sides which both base their arguments on emotion rather than evidence. We exist in an economy that rewards actors based on the importance of their actions rather than the actual skill(i.e. Mutual Fund managers make millions, but are no better than a weighted equation at selecting stocks). We have almost no capacity to analyse long-term risk and have a severe loss aversion even in the simplest of scenarios. While it might be nice to hope that we all would act without irrational bias, until you can "walk the walk", I suggest you avoid "talking the talk".