On reading "On the Origin of Species"

p. 99

I believe that the conditions of life, from their action on the reproductive system, are so far of the highest importance as causing variability. I do not believe that variability is an inherent and necessary contingency, under all circumstances, with all organic beings, as some authors have thought. The effects of variability are modified by various degrees of inheritance and of reversion. Variability is governed by many unknown laws, more especially by that of correlation of growth. Something may be attributed to the direct action of the conditions of life. Something must be attributed to use and disuse.

Some of this passage, the conclusion to the chapter on 'Variation under Domestication', confuses me. I get the impression that what I understand by variation is a more general meaning than that used in this passage.

I also do not know quite what he means by "correlation of growth".

I assume that by "conditions of life" he is talking about deaths by natural causes, and the like.

The comment on "use and disuse" sounds rather Lamarckian. I wonder if it is a throw-away comment, a nod to Lamarck's work.

Speed limits on cars

From reading the BBC news article: Calls for 'speed-limiting' car
It talks about a call to add voluntary speed limiting devices to cars. Voluntary is good, and it does suggest that there would be the possibility of overriding the device. That allays my concern that you would find accidents occurring precisely because the device would prevent you from adding that burst of speed to get out of an otherwise unavoidable situation - but only a bit. The time you need the burst of speed is the time when you need a split-second reaction - and if you had to disable the device, you've lost that reaction time.

A while ago I had the idea that a speedometer device could be devised that highlighted the speed limit on the display, perhaps by reading a signal broadcast by speed limit signs. I have something like this already on my sat-nav. It has a record of the speed limits in place (exactly the method suggested in the article), and highlights when my speed (as calculated by the satnav) exceeds the stored limit.

There are a few advantages to my method, I believe. 1) It reads the limit directly from the road, so temporary limits would be recognised, and out of date data in the digital record would be reduced. 2) Having the display directly in front of you would make it more obvious. 3) The satnav calculation of speed is not the speed calculated by the car's built-in system. The built-in system is more accurate - the satellite system is not an instantaneous measurement, but is averaged over whatever the sampling rate is, and includes any inaccuracies in the calculation of position.

Of course, there are downsides. If the limits were broadcast (or, more likely, queried by the devices) from the roadside, it would be possible for rogue limit indicators to be placed by mal-intentioned individuals. However, I do not see that as a huge issue - at worst you'd find that it affected only some signals along some roads. The issue could also be ameliorated by combining the data received from the roadside with data from a satnav-like stored database.

It would also mean that an initial implementation cost was required to upgrade current speed limit signs. Again, a database would mean that cost could be spread over a reasonable period - new roadsigns would have the transponder, and the older ones could be fitted in a long-term upgrade.

I do not know exactly how the transponder would work - I imagine it would be an integral part of the sign, rather than a separate device fitted to the sign. My initial concept had been to have the in-car devices read the signs themselves - optical character recognition should be able to cope with the standard lettering. My other thought was having markings on the road to represent the speed limit that were read by the in-car device.

Anyway, I am sure the government will do something that some group finds objectionable...as ever!

Of biblical aliens

A friend commented that the bible mentions aliens. I was skeptical, so he made a comment about Jesus saying he was leaving Earth and going to tend his "other flocks". I pointed out that that was a rather vague reference if it did in fact mean aliens.

However, I was intrigued, and went to look it up. I think this is the passage he was referring to:

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible links this with an almost identical Book of Mormon passage, and says that there it refers to the Nephites. Not entirely convinced of the conclusion there, but it is certainly a fairly general statement, and could mean almost anything.