Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
NEW RESEARCH HAS pointed to why women say they could “gobble up” a baby – they smell good enough to eat.
The research, conducted by scientists in Montreal, Canada, found that there are chemical signals for communication between a mother and her child.
The odour of newborns, which is part of these signals, activates a reward circuit in the mother’s brain. These circuits are especially activated when a person eats while being very hungry but also in a craving addict receiving their drug.
Researcher at the University of Montreal, Johannes Frasnelli said it is “in fact, the sating of desire”.
It appears this connection is stronger in women who are mothers themselves, though all women are susceptible to new baby odour, the research found.
Two groups of women were presented with odours of others’ newborns and were subjected to brain imaging tests.
The odours of the newborns were collected from their pyjamas two days after birth, which we’re willing to admit sounds a bit strange, but it’s all in the name of science.
Although the women in both groups perceived the odour of newborns with the same intensity, brain imaging showed greater activation in the circuits of mothers compared to the women who had never given birth.
“This circuit makes us desire certain foods and causes addiction to tobacco and other drugs,” said the researcher. “Not all odours trigger this reaction. Only those associated with reward, such as food or satisfying a desire, cause this activation.”
For the research team, these results show that the odour of newborns undoubtedly plays a role in the development of motivational and emotional responses between mother and child by eliciting maternal care functions such as breastfeeding and protection.
Researchers said there are still questions about whether the reaction of mothers is a result of a change related to childbirth or if it is specific to mothers as men were not part of the experiment.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Surely a petrol engine would be faster than a search engine?
No. Just don’t.
??
They already can do this with two people in the car. Plus human error kills many more in car accidents than drive-by shootings do. Even in the USA.
Hence why their report comes to the conclusion that they will likely reduce the number of fatalities on the roads.
And they needed a new report for this? They also fear that ‘terrorists might program the cars to drive with bombs inside them’. Again, we already do this, you just need a ‘holy’ book and a sexually repressed young male (add some social and political issues and numerous candidates will pop up).
Gee, the FBI are real ‘glass half empty’ guys, aren’t they?
“The good news is that the FBI report accepts that, overall, Google’s cars will likely reduce the number of accidents and fatalities.”
Neither glass empty or glass full kind of guys, but rather guys who tell you that the glass is full but has a risk of spilling drink everywhere kind of guys.
More like guys that identify, groom and equip marginalised individuals with a half-full glass to ‘attack’ high profile targets.
I’d imagine driverless cars would be subject to sticking within the speed limit. Would be pretty pathetic if someone tried to do a drive-by then speed away from the scene of the crime at 50kph!
Not as pathetic as commenting on an article you haven’t read! =D
“The fear is that criminals might hack the cars to override its safety features or that terrorists might program the cars to drive with bombs inside them.”
Just so you don’t have to search for it.
Yeah. I skipped over that bit admittedly. Thought didn’t even occur to me because to me its like arguing that bank accounts shouldn’t have been made accessible online simply because they would become hackable.
Measures can always be taken to mitigate these risks. A need for proper secure systems enforced through traffic security regulation and auditing is obvious. It would be foolish and niave to leave it up to google or any other company to regulate themselves in this area.
Why would driverless cars stick to the speed limit anyway? If all cars are driverless they’ll probably be travelling at very high speeds because GPS & algorithms will ensure that cars avoid each other. Speed limits are related to the speed your average driver should be able to handle depending on the conditions. A computer would be able to handle far higher speeds so there would be no reason not to increase limits greatly (outside residential zones or where pedestrians would be a factor).
Eventually when everyone has a driverless car, yes. Until then it would be a danger to conventionally driven cars. Imagine trying to merge into a motorway when the traffic is made up of driverless cars!
Also, I’d only see the removal of speed limits for motorways, there are pedestrians to consider as well.
Car sex is gonna become a regular occurrence.
I can just see all these cars buzzing around @ 25mph after the pubs close!!
Search for bank. Click -> I’m feeling lucky
If only Stringer Bell had thought of this……..
It would be computerised, I’m sure they would have a remote override option.
Anyway, if you wanted a getaway “driver” would you really want one that follows the speed limits and stops when it’s supposed to.
have your say