A hamburger made from cow muscle grown in a laboratory was fried, served and eaten in London on Monday in an odd demonstration of one view of the future of food.
In vitro meat. Mmmmm.
I understand the driving force behind this. Meat production today takes a great deal of resources. If a way is developed to cheaply produce meat with a smaller environmental footprint, more people can have meat more often.
The science is interesting- this is one step closer to the food replicators in Star Trek. But, the main question that I have is about the quality of the meat and could we ever trust the people or companies that grew it. Existing processed foods are full of ingredients that are added not because they are good for you, but change the appearance, make it cheaper, or last longer. I can see this happening with cultured meat. Maybe snake meat cells replicate more quickly- what is stopping manufacturers from adding it to the mix? Companies already do not want to tell us if their product contains GMO’s. I definitely wouldn’t trust the companies to tell us how meat is grown.
While the line looks simple on TV, the technology behind it is very complex. Sensors were placed on the three main game cameras (at midfield and the two 20 yard lines), capturing the pan, tilt and zoom movements of those cameras 30 times a second. A three-dimensional, virtual model of each field had to be constructed, with the exact measurements of the crown of the field (the center of the field is always higher, for drainage, than the sides and ends, but the precise levels vary in each venue). An exhaustive color palette had to be produced on the fly as the game progressed, so that the green pixels of grass the yellow line replaced would be exactly the “right greens” even as shadows crossed the field and changed the grass hues — an essential feature to assure replacing only the green blades of grass and not the green threads of a Packers or Eagles jersey.
I’ve wondered at how this was done and it’s a lot more complicated than what I thought. The addition of this line really did revolutionize the watching experience.
“War without reflection is mechanical slaughter,” said Christof Heyns, the United Nations special rapporteur onextrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.
“A decision to allow machines to be deployed to kill human beings worldwide — whatever weapons they use — deserves a collective pause,” he told the Human Rights Council in Geneva.
This is a bad idea. Science fiction explores the issues with automated killing machines, and some general themes exist.
1. Control- If you think you control something completely, you don’t. 2. Logic- Robots are more logical than humans and will some day realize that all humans are the enemy.
A line should be drawn now before artificial intelligence technology catches up with science fiction. Our technology has grown by leaps and bounds and it’s probably sooner than we think.
The scary part of this is that there are actually people that think killing robots are a good idea.
Supporters of the robots say they offer a number of advantages: they process information faster than humans, and they are not subject to fear, panic, a desire for revenge or other emotions that can cloud human judgment. Robots can be used to acquire more accurate battlefield data that can help to target fire more precisely and in the process may save lives.
Local media in the Central American country of 334,000 people report the temple at the Noh Mul site in northern Belize was largely torn down by backhoes and bulldozers last week.
“This is one of the worst that I have seen in my entire 25 years of archaeology in Belize,” John Morris, an archaeologist with the country’s Institute of Archaeology, told local channel 7NewsBelize. “We can’t salvage what has happened out here — it is an incredible display of ignorance.”
Really sad. This is all about greed- the limestone in the temple is considered high quality material for roads and cheaper to get for the contractors.
In 2001, researcher Frédéric Brochet invited 54 wine experts to give their opinions on what were ostensibly two glasses of different wine: one red, and one white. In actuality, the two wines were identical, with one exception: the “red” wine had been dyed with food coloring.
The experts described the “red” wine in language typically reserved for characterizing reds. They called it “jammy,” for example, and noted the flavors imparted by its “crushed red fruit.” Not one of the 54 experts surveyed noticed that it was, in fact a white wine.
Interesting article. It seems that one’s perception of a wine is highly dependent on external factors.