When we talk of the history of computers, most of us will refer to the evolution of the modern digital desktop PC, charting the decades-long developments by the likes of Apple and Microsoft. What many don’t consider, however, is that computers have been around much longer. In fact, they date back millennia, to a time when they were analogue creations.
Today, the world’s oldest known “computer” is the Antikythera mechanism, a severely corroded bronze artifact which was found at the beginning of the 20th Century, in the remains of a shipwreck near the Mediterranean island of Antikythera. It wasn’t until the 1970s that the importance of the Antikythera mechanism was discovered, when radiography revealed that the device is in fact a complex mechanism of at least 30 gear wheels. Read More
Forty years ago today, the first of two landing probes of NASA’s Project Viking touched down on planet Mars.
Discover contributor Dr. David Warmflash spoke with Dr. Gilbert Levin, whose Labeled Release (LR) experiment was one of three instruments delivered by the Viking landers to look for Martian microorganisms in 1976.
At age 92, Levin is the only survivor of the three biology experimenters and he’s looking ahead to 2020 when he hopes to have another instrument on the Martian surface looking for life. Read More
On Easter Island, isolated in the middle of the vast Pacific Ocean, ten species of near microscopic insects are all that remain of the island’s native species — at least for now.
Hidden in volcanic caves that dot the island, the endemic insects of Rapa Nui eke out an existence in an increasingly imperiled habitat. Their ancestral homes, fragile gardens of moss and ferns, are endangered by tourists flooding into the tiny island, and hordes of invasive species threaten to crowd them out. The island may have been immortalized by its iconic Moai, monolithic stone statues standing some 40 feet tall, but its most important inhabitants are almost too small to be seen. Read More
When Psy’s “Gangnam Style” broke YouTube, they refused to give it a single view.
When people soaked themselves during the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, they called it a waste of water.
When Pokémon Go took the United States by storm after its release July 6, they went out of their way to tell friends, family and social network followers they would never play the game. They encouraged pocket monster trainers to grow up, pursue gainful employment or just get off their lawns. One writer, Mattie Lou Chandler, was compelled to publish “A Hater’s Guide to Pokémon Go.” Read More
A new paper reports that over half of Earth’s land area has suffered biodiversity loss beyond “safe limits.”
The study, released Thursday in Science, compiles a global dataset of biodiversity change and compares it to human land use patterns. The analysis shows that 58 percent of Earth’s land, which is home to 71 percent of the human population, has surpassed a recently proposed safe limit for biodiversity loss, beyond which ecosystems may no longer support human societies.
While the news sounds dire, other ecologists contend that the very notion of setting “safe limits” is a danger in itself, and criticize this line-in-the-sand approach to assessing the planet’s ecological health. In fact, critics say setting a limit may do more harm than good. Read More
Most of us harbor about 2 percent Neanderthal DNA, inherited when our ancestors bred with Neanderthals more than 50,000 years ago. This was revealed back in 2010, when geneticists salvaged enough fragments of ancient DNA from Neanderthal bones to piece together a full genome. The discovery squelched a longstanding debate over whether Neanderthals and modern humans met — they did — and mated — oh yeah.
But why do we only have 2 percent Neanderthal ancestry? And what are the effects of that Neanderthal DNA on living humans? And why did our ancestors survive and Neanderthals go extinct? We’ve attributed our supremacy to bigger brains, better diets and advanced technology, but there may be a subtler, less flattering explanation for our evolutionary success. Read More
Since the evolution of dogs from wolves tens of thousands of years ago, they have been selectively bred for various roles as guards, hunters, workers and companions. But dogs are not the only animal humans have domesticated, which suggests that although dogs get all the attention, there’s reason to argue other species could also deserve the title of “man’s best friend”.
Anthrozoology, the study of human-animal relationships, has established that dogs demonstrate complex communication with humans. Charles Darwin thought that dogs experienced love, but it was only in 2015 that Japanese scientists demonstrated what we all intuitively knew. Miho Nagasawa and colleagues sprayed the “love hormone” oxytocin up dogs’ noses, measured the loving gaze between dog and human, and then measured the oxytocin levels in the humans’ urine, finding them to be higher. Rest assured, dog owners, that science has verified your bond with your faithful hound. Read More
At the turn of the twentieth century, a young Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe began vacationing with his wealthy parents, both sculptors, at a country retreat outside Kristiania (now Oslo), Norway, where he immersed himself in the lives of birds in the barnyard.
He gave them names, closely watched how they behaved, and learned how to recognize one from the other. He “became terribly interested in chickens, terribly interested,” Schjelderup-Ebbe’s son Dag recounted in 1986 in an interview published in Human Ethology Bulletin. Read More
Juno (JUpiter Near-polar Orbiter) is the sixth spacecraft to study Jupiter (give or take a few gravity assists), but will be the second to fall into orbit around the gas giant following the Galileo probe in 1995.
It is part of NASA’s New Frontiers space exploration program that specializes in researching the celestial bodies of the solar system. Juno was launched on August 5th, 2011 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida and intended to be placed in a polar orbit around Jupiter to study the planet’s composition, magnetic and gravity fields, and the polar magnetosphere. Even though Juno’s scientific mission only lasts for a year, many more spacecraft are headed Jupiter’s way. Read More
There are three things you can be sure of in life: death, taxes – and lying. The latter certainly appears to have been borne out by the UK’s recent Brexit referendum, with a number of the Leave campaign’s pledges looking more like porkie pies than solid truths.
But from internet advertising, visa applications and academic articles to political blogs, insurance claims and dating profiles, there are countless places we can tell digital lies. So how can one go about spotting these online fibs? Well, Stephan Ludwig from the University of Westminster, Ko de Ruyter from City University London’s Cass Business School, Mike Friedman of the Catholic University of Louvain, and yours truly have developed a digital lie detector – and it can uncover a whole host of internet untruths.
In our new research, we used linguistic cues to compare tens of thousands of emails pre-identified as lies with those known to be truthful. And from this comparison, we developed a text analytic algorithm that can detect deception. It works on three levels.
Keyword searches can be a reasonable approach when dealing with large amounts of digital data. So, we first uncovered differences in word usage between the two document sets. These differences identify text that is likely to contain a lie. We found that individuals who lie generally use fewer personal pronouns, such as I, you, and he/she, and more adjectives, such as brilliant, fearless, and sublime. They also use fewer first-person singular pronouns, such as I, me, mine, with discrepancy words, such as could, should, would, as well as more second-person pronouns (you, your) with achievement words (earn, hero, win).
Fewer personal pronouns indicate an author’s attempt to dissociate themselves from their words, while using more adjectives is an attempt to distract from the lie through a flurry of superfluous descriptions. Fewer first-person singular pronouns combined with discrepancy words indicate a lack of subtlety and a positive self-image, while more second-person pronouns combined with achievement words indicate an attempt to flatter recipients. We therefore included these combinations of search terms in our algorithm.
Another part of the solution lay in analyzing the variance of cognitive process words, such as cause, because, know and ought – and we identified a relationship between structure words and lies.
Liars cannot generate deceptive emails from actual memory so they avoid spontaneity to evade detection. That does not mean that liars use more cognitive process words overall than people who are telling the truth, but they do include these words more consistently. For example, they tend to connect every sentence to the next – “we know this happened because of this, because this ought to be the case”. Our algorithm detects such usage of process words in communications.
We also studied the ways in which a sender of an email alters their linguistic style while exchanging a number of emails with someone else. This part of the study revealed that as the exchange went on, the more the sender tended to use the function words that the receiver was using.
Function words are words that contribute to the syntax, or structure, rather than the meaning of a sentence – for example an, am, to. And senders revised the linguistic style of their messages to match that of the receiver. As a consequence, our algorithm identifies and collects such matching.
Consumer watchdogs can use this technology to assign a “possibly lying” score to advertisements of a dubious nature. Security companies and national border forces can use the algorithm to assess documents, such as visa applications and landing cards, to better monitor compliance with access and entry rules and regulations. Secretaries of higher education exam committees and editors of academic journals can improve their proofing tools for automatically checking student theses and academic articles for plagiarism.
In fact, the potential applications go on and on. Political blogs can successfully monitor their social media interactions for textual anomalies, while dating and review sites can classify messages submitted by users on the basis of their “possibly lying” score. Insurance companies can make better use of their time and resources available for claim auditing. Accountants, tax advisers, and forensic specialists can investigate financial statements and tax claims and find deceptive smoking guns through our algorithm.
Humans are startlingly bad at consciously detecting deception. Indeed, human accuracy when it comes to spotting a lie is just 54 percent, hardly better than chance. Our digital lie detector, meanwhile, is 70 percent accurate. It can be put to work to fight fraud wherever it occurs in computerized content and as the technology evolves, its Pinocchio warnings can be wholly automated and its accuracy will increase even further. Just as Pinocchio’s nose reflexively signaled falsehood, so does our digital lie detector. Fibbers beware.