20100628ECFA 圖利財團？全民受惠？

Secrets of Google's 3-D Mars, Moon

Oil Spill Threatens Native American "Water" Village

COMmon huMAN UNITY - Video

Just Jerusalem Competition entry "COMmon huMAN UNITY" by Pierre-Edouard Verret.

Engadget, Baig demo FaceTime

Engadget, Baig demo FaceTime


USA TODAY's Ed Baig and Engadget demonstrate video calls using the FaceTime application on iPhone 4. Video courtesy of Engadget.

Rebecca Saxe: How we read each other's minds

About this talk

Sensing the motives and feelings of others is a natural talent for humans. But how do we do it? Here, Rebecca Saxe shares fascinating lab work that uncovers how the brain thinks about other peoples' thoughts -- and judges their actions.

"I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." (Alen)


Transcript:

Today I'm going to talk to you about the problem of other minds. And the problem I'm going to talk about is not the familiar one from philosophy, which is, "How can we know whether other people have minds?" That is, maybe you have a mind, and everyone else is just a really convincing robot. So that's a problem in philosophy. But for today's purposes I'm going to assume that many people in this audience have a mind, and that I don't have to worry about this.

There is a second problem that is maybe even more familiar to us as parents and teachers and spouses, and novelists. Which is, "Why is it so hard to know what somebody else wants or believes?" Or perhaps, more relevantly, "Why is it so hard to change what somebody else wants or believes?"

I think novelists put this best. Like Philip Roth, who said, "And yet, what are we to do about this terribly significant business of other people? So ill equipped are we all, to envision one another's interior workings and invisible aims." So as a teacher, and as a spouse, this is, of course, a problem I confront every day. But as a scientist, I'm interested in a different problem of other minds, and that is the one I'm going to introduce to you today. And that problem is, "How is it so easy to know other minds?"

So to start with an illustration, you need almost no information, one snapshot of a stranger, to guess what this woman is thinking, or what this man is. And put another way, the crux of the problem is the machine that we use for thinking about other minds, our brain, is made up of pieces, brain cells, that we share with all other animals, with monkeys, and mice, and even sea slugs. And yet, you put them together in a particular network, and what you get is the capacity to write Romeo and Juliet. Or to say, as Alan Greenspan did, "I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." (Laughter)

So the job of my field of cognitive neuroscience is to stand with these ideas, one in each hand. And to try to understand how you can put together simple units, simple messages over space and time, in a network, and get this amazing human capacity to think about minds. So I'm going to tell you three things about this today. Obviously the whole project here is huge. And I'm going to tell you just our first few steps about the discovery of a special brain region for thinking about other people's thoughts. Some observations on the slow development of this system as we learn how to do this difficult job. And then finally, to show that some of the differences between people, in how we judge others, can be explained by differences in this brain system.

So first, the first thing I want to tell you is that there is a brain region in the human brain, in your brains, whose job it is to think about other people's thoughts. This is a picture of it. It's called the Right Temporo-Parietal Junction. It's above and behind your right ear. And this is the brain region you used when you saw the pictures I showed you, or when you read Romeo and Juliet, or when you tried to understand Alan Greenspan. And you don't use it for solving any other kinds of logical problems. So this brain region is called the RTPJ. And this picture shows the average activation in a group of what we call typical human adults. They're MIT undergraduates. (Laughter)

The second thing I want to say about this brain system is that although we human adults are really good at understanding other minds, we weren't always that way. It takes children a long time to break into the system. I'm going to show you a little bit of that long, extended process. The first thing I'm going to show you is a change between age three and five, as kids learn to understand that somebody else can have beliefs that are different from their own. So I'm going to show you a five-year-old who is getting a standard kind of puzzle that we call the false belief task.

Video: This is the first pirate. His name is Ivan. And you know what pirates really like?

Pirates really like cheese sandwiches.

Child: Cheese? I love cheese!

R.S.: Yeah. So Ivan has this cheese sandwich. and he says "Yum yum yum yum yum! I really love cheese sandwiches." And Ivan puts his sandwich over here, on top of the pirate chest. And Ivan says, "You know what? I need a drink with my lunch." And so Ivan goes to get a drink. And while Ivan is away the wind comes, and it blows the sandwich down onto the grass. And now, here comes the other pirate. This pirate is called Joshua. And Joshua also really loves cheese sandwiches. So Joshua has a cheese sandwich and he says, "Yum yum yum yum yum! I love cheese sandwiches." And he puts his cheese sandwich over here on top of the pirate chest.

Child: So, that one is his.

R.S.: That one is Joshua's. That's right.

Child: And then his went on the ground.

R.S.: That's exactly right.

Child: So he won't know which one is his.

R.S.: Oh. So now Joshua goes off to get a drink. Ivan comes back and he says, " I want my cheese sandwich." So which one do you think Ivan is going to take?

Child: I think he is going to take that one.

R.S.: Yeah, you think he's going to take that one? Alright. Let's see. Oh yeah, you were right. He took that one.

So that's a five-year-old who clearly understands that other people can have false beliefs and what the consequences are for their actions. Now I'm going to show you a three-year-old who got the same puzzle.

Video: R.S.: And Ivan says, "I want my cheese sandwich." Which sandwich is he going to take? Do you think he's going to take that one? Let's see what happens. Let's see what he does. Here comes Ivan. And he says, "I want my cheese sandwich." And he takes this one. Uh-oh. Why did he take that one?

Child: His was on the grass.

R.S. So the three-year-old does two things differently. First he predicts Ivan will take the sandwich that's really his. And second, when he sees Ivan taking the sandwich where he left his, where we would say he's taking that one because he thinks it's his, the three-year-old comes up with another explanation. He's not taking his own sandwich because he doesn't want it, because now it's dirty, on the ground. So that's why he's taking the other sandwich. Now of course, development doesn't end at five. And we can see the continuation of this process of learning to think about other people's thoughts by upping the ante and asking children now, not for an action prediction, but for a moral judgement. So first I'm going to show you the three-year-old again.

Video: R.S.: So is Ivan being mean and naughty for taking Joshua's sandwich?

Child: Yeah.

R.S.: Should Ivan get in trouble for taking Joshua's sandwich?

Child: Yeah.

R.S.: So it's maybe not surprising he thinks it was mean of Ivan to take Joshua's sandwich. Since he thinks Ivan only took Joshua's sandwich to avoid having to eat his own dirty sandwich. But now I'm going to show you the five-year-old. Remember the five-year-old completely understood why Ivan took Joshua's sandwich.

Video: R.S.: Was Ivan being mean and naughty for taking Joshua's sandwich?

Child: Um, yeah.

R.S.: And so, it is not until age seven that we get what looks more like an adult response.

Video: R.S.: Should Ivan get in trouble for taking Joshua's sandwich?

Child: No, because the wind should get in trouble.

R.S. He says the wind should get in trouble for switching the sandwiches. (Laughter)

And now what we've started to do in my lab is to put children into the brain scanner and ask what's going on in their brain as they develop this ability to think about other people's thoughts. So the first thing is that in children we see this same brain region, the RTPJ, being used while children are thinking about other people. But it's not quite like the adult brain.

So where as in the adults, as I told you, this brain region is almost completely specialized. It does almost nothing else, except for thinking about other people's thoughts. In children it's much less so, when they are age five to eight, the age range of the children I just showed you. And actually if we even look at eight to 11-year-olds, getting into early adolescence, they still don't have quite an adult-like brain region. And so, what we can see is that over the course of childhood and even into adolescence, both the cognitive system, our mind's ability to think about other minds, and the brain system that supports it, are continuing, slowly, to develop.

But of course, as you're probably aware, even in adulthood, people differ from one another in how good they are at thinking of other minds, how often they do it, and how accurately. And so what we wanted to know was, could differences among adults, in how they think about other people's thoughts be explained in terms of differences in this brain region. So the first thing that we did is we gave adults a version of the pirate problem that we gave to the kids. And I'm going to give that to you now.

So Grace and her friend are on a tour of a chemical factory and they take a break for coffee. And Grace's friend asks for some sugar in her coffee. Grace goes to make the coffee and finds by the coffee a pot containing a white powder, which is sugar. But the powder is labeled "Deadly Poison". So Grace thinks that the powder is a deadly poison. And she puts it in her friend's coffee. And her friend drinks the coffee, and is fine.

How many people think it was morally permissible for Grace to put the powder in the coffee? Okay. Good. (Laughter) So we ask people how much should Grace be blamed in this case, which we call a failed attempt to harm.

And we can compare that to another case where everything in the real world is the same. The powder is still sugar, but what's different is what Grace thinks. Now she thinks the powder is sugar. And perhaps unsurprisingly, if Grace thinks the powder is sugar and puts it in her friend's coffee, people say she deserves no blame at all. Whereas if she thinks the powder was poison, even though it's really sugar, now people say she deserves a lot of blame, even though what happened in the real world was exactly the same.

And in fact they say she deserves more blame in this case, the failed attempt to harm, than in another case, which we call an accident. Where Grace thought the powder was sugar, because it was labeled "sugar" and by the coffee machine, but actually the powder was poison. So even though when the powder was poison, the friend drank the coffee and died, people say Grace deserves less blame in that case, when she innocently thought it was sugar, than in the other case, where she thought it was poison, and no harm occurred.

People, though, disagree a little bit about exactly how much blame Grace should get in the accident case. Some people think she should deserve more blame, and other people less. And what I'm going to show you is what happened when we look inside the brains of people while they're making that judgment. So what I'm showing you, from left to right, is how much activity there was in this brain region. and from top to bottom, how much blame people said that Grace deserved.

And what you can see is, on the left when there as very little activity in this brain region, people paid little attention to her innocent belief and said she deserved a lot of blame for the accident. Whereas, on the right, where there was a lot of activity, people payed a lot more attention to her innocent belief, and said she deserved a lot less blame for causing the accident.

So that's good, but of course what we'd rather is have a way to interfere with function in this brain region, and see if we could change people's moral judgment. And we do have such a tool. It's called Trans-Cranial Magnetic Stimulation, or TMS. This is a tool that lets us pass a magnetic pulse through somebody's skull, into a small region of their brain, and temporarily disorganize the function of the neurons in that region.

So I'm going to show you a demo of this. First I'm going to show you, to show you that this is a magnetic pulse, I'm going to show you what happens when you put a quarter on the machine. When you hear clicks we're turning the machine on. So now I'm going to apply that same pulse to my brain, to the part of my brain that controls my hand. So there is not physical force, just a magnetic pulse.

Video: Woman: Ready? Rebecca Saxe: Yes.

Okay, so it causes a small involuntary contraction in my hand by putting a magnetic pulse in my brain. And we can use that same pulse, now applied to the RTPJ, to ask if we can change people's moral judgments. So these are the judgments I showed you before, people's normal moral judgments. And then we can apply TMS to the RTPJ and ask how people's judgments change. And the first thing is, people can still do this task overall.

So their judgments of the case when everything was fine remain the same. They say she deserves no blame. But in the case of a failed attempt to harm, where Grace thought that it was poison, although it was really sugar, people now say it was more okay, she deserves less blame for putting the powder in the coffee.

And in the case of the accident, where she thought that it was sugar, but it was really poison and so she caused a death, people say that it was less okay, she deserves more blame. So what I've told you today is that people come, actually, especially well equipped to think about other people's thoughts.

We have a special brain system that lets us think about what other people are thinking. This system takes a long time to develop, slowly throughout the course of childhood, and into early adolescence. And even in adulthood, differences in this brain region can explain differences among adults in how we think about and judge other people.

But I want to give the last word back to the novelists. And to Philip Roth, who ended by saying, "The fact remains that getting people right is not what living is all about anyway. It's getting them wrong that is living. Getting them wrong and wrong and wrong, and then on careful reconsideration, getting them wrong again." Thank you. (Applause)

Chris Anderson: When you start talking about using magnetic pulses to change people's moral judgments, that sounds alarming. (Laughter) Please tell me that you're not taking phone calls from the Pentagon, say.

Rebecca Saxe: I'm not. I mean, they're calling, but I'm not taking the call. (Laughter)

C.A.: They really are calling? So, then seriously, then seriously, you must lie awake at night sometimes wondering where this work leads. I mean you're clearly an incredible human being. But someone could take this knowledge and in some future not torture chamber, do acts that people here might be worried about.

R.S.: Yeah, we worry about this. So, there is a couple of things to say about TMS. One is that you can't be TMSed with out knowing it. So it's not a surreptitious technology. It's quite hard actually to get those very small changes. The changes I showed you are impressive to me because of what they tell us about the function of the brain. But they're small on the scale of the moral judgments that we actually make.

And what we changed was not people's moral judgments when they're deciding what to do, when they're making action choices. We change their ability to judge other people's actions. And so I think of what I'm doing not so much as studying the defendant in a criminal trial, but studying the jury.

C.A.: Is your work going to lead to any recommendations in education, to perhaps bring up a generation of kids able to make fairer moral judgments?

R.S.: That's one of the idealistic hopes. The whole research program here, of studying the distinctive parts of the human brain, is brand new. Until recently what we knew about the brain were the things that any other animal's brain could do too. So we could study it in animal models. We knew how brains see, and how they control the body, and how they hear and sense. And the whole project of understanding how brains do the uniquely human things, learn language, and abstract concepts, and thinking about other people's thoughts, that's brand new. And we don't know yet, what the implications will be of understanding it.

C.A.: So I've got one last question. There is this thing called the hard problem of consciousness, that puzzles a lot of people. The notion that you can understand why a brain works, perhaps. But why does anyone have to feel anything? Why does it seem to require these beings who sense things for us to operate? You're a brilliant young neuroscientist. I mean, what chances do you think there are that at some time in your career someone, you or someone else, is going to come up with some paradigm shift in understanding what seems an impossible problem.

R.S.: I hope they do. And I think they probably won't.

C.A.: Why?

R.S.: It's not called the hard problem of consciousness for nothing. (Laughter)

C.A.: That's a great answer. Rebecca Saxe, thank you very much. That was fantastic. (Applause)


今天我要和大家談談心智的問題 我要談的 不是大家熟悉的哲學問題 不是＂我們怎麼知道 別人有心智?＂ 說不定你有心智 其他人只是很像真人的機器人 這是哲學問題 而在這場演講中，我假設 這裡大部分的觀眾都有心智 我就不必費心在這個問題上了

第二個問題我們可能更熟悉 身為父母、老師、丈夫妻子 還有小說家 我們想問，＂為什麼我們很難 知道別人要什麼或想什麼?" 或者更貼切來說 ＂為什麼我們很難改變別人要的或想的?＂

我覺得小說家解釋得最好 像菲利浦羅斯說的 ＂而我們要如何處理「他人」 這件無比重要的大事?" 我們資質不足 難以窺見彼此內心的思慮 與無法捉摸的意向" 而身為老師、妻子 這自然也是我每天都面對的問題 但身為科學家，我感興趣的是另一個問題 也就是我今天要向大家介紹的 這個問題是，＂為什麼我們這麼容易 就能了解他人的心智?＂

先看看這張照片 你幾乎不需要其他線索 隨便看一眼這個陌生人 就能猜出這個女人在想什麼 或這個男人在想什麼 換句話說，問題的關鍵 是我們用以思考別人心智的機制 也就是大腦，是由許多腦細胞組成 這些細胞和其他動物沒什麼不同，和猴子 和老鼠，甚至海參都差不多 不過，把這些細胞用特別的方式組織在一起 造出來的大腦就能寫出羅密歐與茱麗葉 或者，像葛林斯潘說的 "我知道你以為你明白你認為我所說的 不過我不確定你瞭解：你所聽到的 並非我真正的意思" (笑聲)

認知神經科學的工作 就是思考這些問題 同時比較分析這些問題 並且試著了解為什麼 把簡單的細胞和訊息組織起來 人類就有驚人的能力，能思考他人心智 我今天要談三件事 這個研究計畫很龐大 我想談談計畫的頭幾個步驟 -- 我們是怎麼發現腦中有特定的區塊 負責思考其他人的想法 以及，這種能力發展緩慢 所以我們很晚才學會思考別人的想法 最後，說明道德判斷 每個人不同 這和每個人的大腦差異有關

首先，我想告訴各位 人類大腦有個區塊 負責思考其他人的想法 請看這張圖 這個區域叫右顳顱頂接縫區 在你右耳後面上方 你使用這個區塊，處理我剛才給你看的照片 或讀羅密歐與茱麗葉 或想辦法理解葛林斯潘在說什麼 你不會用這個區塊處理任何其他邏輯問題 好，這個區塊就叫RTPJ 而這張照片顯示一般人的反應 一群所謂普通成年人的反應 一群麻省理工大學生 (笑聲)

關於大腦，我想談的第二點是 雖然成人 對了解別人心智很拿手 但這不是天生的 小孩子要很久才會使用這項能力 我稍微介紹一下這個漫長的學習過程 首先我想展現三歲和五歲小孩間的不同 看看小孩學會了解 別人的想法和自己可能不一樣 我要給各位看一個五歲的小孩 他在做一個常見的測驗 叫做"錯誤信念作業"

這個海盜叫做艾文 你知道海盜最喜歡什麼嗎？ --什麼？

海盜最喜歡起士三明治

起士？我最喜歡起士了！

嗯，然後艾文吃他的起士三明治 他說："好吃、好吃、好吃 我最喜歡起士三明治了" 然後艾文把三明治放在這裡，放在海盜的箱子上 他說：我要喝點東西配午餐 然後艾文就走了，去喝飲料 艾文不在的時候 一陣風吹來，呼... 把艾文的三明治吹到草地上 然後又來了第二個海盜 這個海盜叫做約書亞 約書亞也很喜歡起士三明治 約書亞也在吃起士三明治 他說："好吃、好吃、好吃，我最喜歡起士三明治了!" 然後把他的起士三明治放在海盜箱上

所以這是他的起士三明治

對，這是約書亞的三明治

然後艾文的掉在地上

沒錯

所以他不知道哪個三明治是他的

嗯，然後約書亞也跑去拿飲料 艾文回來了，他說：我要我的起士三明治 所以你覺得他會拿哪一個？

我覺得他會拿那一個

喔，你覺得他會拿那個嗎？好，等一下看看 對，你說的沒錯，艾文拿那一個

這個五歲小還很清楚 別人可能有錯誤信念 以及行為的結果是什麼 現在我要請各位看一個三歲的小孩 他接受同一個測驗

然後艾文說：我要我的起士三明治 他會拿哪一個三明治呢？ 你覺得他會拿那個三明治嗎？等一下我們看看 我們來看看艾文會拿哪一個，艾文來了 他說："我要我的起士三明治" 他拿了這個三明治 喔，他為什麼拿這個三明治呢？

"他的三明治掉在地上"

所以三歲小孩的想法有兩個地方不一樣 首先，他認為艾文會拿 真正屬於他的三明治 其次，當他看到艾文拿放在他原先地方的三明治 我們覺得是因為艾文以為那是他的三明治 這個三歲的小孩卻有別的解釋 他說艾文不拿他的三明治，因為他不想要了 因為那個三明治掉在地上弄髒了 所以艾文才拿另一個三明治 當然大腦發展不會在五歲停止 我們可以看到這個過程一直持續下去 我們不停學習思考別人的心智 我們問小孩更多問題 然後，不是請他們預測行為 而是請他們下道德判斷 首先我再請各位看剛剛那個三歲小孩

那艾文是不是故意調皮搗蛋，才拿約書亞的三明治?

對

那我們是不是要處罰艾文？

對

或許我們不意外這個小朋友會認為艾文是故意 要拿約書亞的三明治 因為他覺得艾文拿約書亞的三明治 是因為不想吃他自己髒掉的三明治 不過現在我想給各位看五歲小孩的反應 記得這個五歲小孩很清楚 為什麼艾文要拿約書亞的三明治

艾文是不是故意調皮搗蛋 要拿約書亞的三明治？

嗯，對

所以，一直要到七歲 小孩的反應才會比較像成人

我們是不是要處罰艾文，因為他拿了約書亞的三明治？

不對，要處罰風才對

他說要處罰風才對 因為風把三明治調換了 (笑聲)

目前我的實驗室在進行的實驗 是把兒童放在掃描儀器裡 觀察他們大腦的反應 看看發展思考他人心智能力的期間，大腦的狀況 首先我們看到兒童腦中同一個區塊，RTPJ 也在思考他人心志時活動 但和成人的腦有點不同

成人的腦，像我剛才說的 這個區塊幾乎完全特化 別的都不做，只用來思考別人的心智 兒童的腦則不然 兒童在五歲到八歲 也就是剛才的兒童所屬的年齡範圍 甚至在八歲到11歲 接近青春期的時候 腦中區塊的情況和成人還是不太一樣 因此，我們發現整個童年時期 甚至一直到青春期 我們的認知系統 也就是用自己的心智思考他人心志的能力 還有認知背後的大腦系統 都還在逐漸緩慢發展

但是，或許各位也注意到 即使到了成年 每個人的認知能力還是不同，每個人是否擅長思考他人心智 思考頻率 還有結果是否正確，都各不相同 我們想問，成人間的不同 在思考別人想法上的不同 是不是和每個人大腦這個區塊的差別有關 首先我們給成人 類似海盜問題的測驗 現在我也給各位看看

葛瑞絲和她朋友去參觀化學工廠 他們想休息一下，喝杯咖啡 葛瑞絲的朋友說她的咖啡要加糖 葛瑞絲去泡咖啡 發現咖啡旁有個罐子 裡面的白色粉末是糖粉 但罐子上寫 "劇毒" 所以葛瑞絲以為罐子裡的粉末是毒藥 然後她把粉末放到朋友的咖啡裡 她朋友喝了咖啡，但安然無恙

有人認為葛瑞思把粉末放到朋友的咖啡杯 是合乎道德的嗎? 好，非常好 (笑聲) 接著我們問這件事葛瑞絲要付多少責任 這種情況叫做企圖傷害未遂

我們可以拿來和另一個情況比較 其他條件都一樣 罐裡的粉末還是糖粉，唯一不同的是葛瑞絲的想法 在這第二種情況中，葛瑞絲覺得那個粉末是糖粉 當然如果葛瑞絲認為那是糖粉 而加到朋友的咖啡裡 多數人會認為葛瑞絲沒有錯 但如果葛瑞絲認為那是毒藥還把它加到朋友的咖啡裡，即使實際上那是糖粉 多數人會認為葛瑞絲該受罰 雖然最後的結果其實和前一個狀況一樣

還有，多數人認為在企圖傷害未遂的情況中 葛瑞絲要負更多責任 而在另一個情況下，她不必負太多責任 這種情況叫意外 這時葛瑞絲認為罐子裡的粉末是糖粉 因為罐子上寫"糖粉"，還擺在咖啡旁邊 雖然那是毒藥 所以，就算罐子裡其實是毒藥 害朋友喝完咖啡後死掉 多數人認為葛瑞絲不必付那麼大的責任 因為她毫不知情，以為那是糖粉 而在她以為是毒藥，拿給朋友喝的情況下 雖然朋友沒事，但她要負更大責任

不過，在意外的情況中 究竟葛瑞絲要付多少責任 大家意見不同 有些人覺得她要負很大的責任 有些人覺得她不用負什麼責任 而我要給各位看人類下道德判斷時 大腦怎麼活動 這張圖的X軸，左右方向 代表腦部RTPJ區塊活動多寡 而Y軸，上下方向， 代表人們認為葛瑞絲要付多少責任

你可以看到， 在左邊，大腦這個區域沒有什麼活動時 大家沒有注意葛瑞絲並不知情 因此認為她要為意外負責 而在右邊，區塊大量活動 大家注意到葛瑞絲事前不知情 因此認為她不用為這場意外 負太多責任

看來很不錯 但我們更想做的 是干擾腦中這個區塊的功能 看看是否可以改變人類的道德判斷 而且我們的確有這種工具 叫做穿顱磁刺激 簡稱TMS 我們可以用這個工具傳遞磁脈衝 通過頭骨，抵達大腦一個小區塊 暫時癱瘓那個區塊的神經功能

現在請各位看示範 首先我要介紹磁脈衝 把硬幣放在機器上看看會發生什麼事 滴答聲響，表示機器打開 現在我要在我的大腦施加同樣的磁脈衝 讓磁脈衝進入控制手部的區塊 這不是實際的外力，只是磁脈衝

準備好了嗎？ --好了

好，所以磁脈衝 讓我的手不由自主地收縮 同樣的磁脈衝 現在施加在大腦的RTJP區塊 看看我們是否能改變人的道德判斷 這是剛才各位看的道德判斷數值 現在把TMS打到RTJP上 看看人們是否改變道德判斷 結果發現，人還是可以做判斷作業

沒發生問題的話，判斷不變 他們認為葛瑞絲不用負責 但在企圖傷害未遂的情況下 就是葛瑞絲認為那是毒藥，但實際上是糖粉 受測者現在覺得比較沒關係 葛瑞絲不用為放粉末到咖啡裡負很大的責任

至於意外狀況，也就是葛瑞絲以為那是糖粉 但卻是毒藥，因而害死朋友 人們比較不能接受，認為她要負責 總而言之，今天我所說的就是 我們其實天生資質很好 有能力思考他人的想法

我們有特別的腦部系統 讓我們思考別人在想些什麼 這個系統要花很長的時間成熟 要經過整個童年和青春期早期 而成年以後，腦部的差異 會影響成人思考 造成不同的判斷

最後我要引用演講剛開始提到那位小說家的話 菲力普羅斯在結尾處說 "其實理解別人 根本不是生活的重心 誤解別人才是生活重心 一而再，再而三地誤解別人 然後重新仔細思考 再繼續誤解對方＂ 謝謝各位 (掌聲)

你剛剛提到 要用磁脈衝改變人的道德判斷 那聽起來真恐怖 (笑聲) 你應該沒有接到國防部之類打來的電話吧?

我沒有接到 我是說，他們有打來，不過我沒接 (笑聲)

他們真的有打啊？ 好了，說真的 你一定曾經半夜睡不著 想著這種研究會對未來造什麼影響 我是說，你非常了不起 但有些人可能利用這種知識 在未來某一天做某些事 當然不至於是酷刑虐待 但可能是某些令我們擔憂的事

沒錯，我們也很擔心 關於TMS有幾點要說明 首先你接受TMS時，自己一定會知道 這不是什麼暗中進行的神祕科技 還有，想稍微改變判斷其實不容易 我給你們看的改變對我而言很了不起 因為我們知道大腦的功能 但其實改變幅度很小 我們沒有讓道德判斷產生多大改變

而且我們不是真的讓人改變主意 改變他們的決定 改變他們的行為 我們改變的只是他們判斷其他人行為的能力 所以我覺得 我們比較不像在研究刑事案件裡的被告 比較像在研究陪審團

你的研究可以帶來教育方面的建議嗎？ 像是讓小孩長大以後 能做更公正的判斷？

有可能，那很不錯 這整個研究計畫 研究人類大腦獨特之處，是全新的概念 直到最近我們對腦的認識 還是侷限在其他動物也有的功能 所以我們才能從動物研究推測人腦功能 我們知道大腦的視覺功能，怎麼控制身體 還有聽覺與觸覺功能 而這整個計畫 了解大腦如何進行人類獨特功能 例如語言學習、抽象思考 還有思考他人的想法，是全新的研究領域 因此目前我們還不清楚 了解這些會帶來什麼衝擊

最後一個問題 意識的困難問題 困擾許多人 它是說你可以了解大腦怎麼運作 讓你產生主觀感受，大致是這樣 但是為什麼我們要有主觀感受？ 為什麼我們要感受事物 才能當一個"人"? 你是年輕有為的認知神經學者 你覺得有沒有可能 在你職業生涯某一天 某個人，你或其他人 能轉移典範，提出劃時代的觀點 讓我們了解這個看來無解的問題？

我希望他們做得到，但我覺得他們大概沒辦法

為什麼？

就是因為這樣所以才叫困難問題 (笑聲)

答得好，蕾貝嘉薩克斯，謝謝妳，說得太好了 (掌聲)


今日はこれから他人の心の問題についてお話しします お話ししたいのは 哲学の領域でよく知られている問題、つまり― 「他人が心を持っているかどうか どうしてわかるのか？」ではありません つまり「あなたには心があるが ほかの人たちはみんな人間そっくりのロボットなのか」という話ではありません それは哲学の問題です 今日の目的のためには、みなさんの 多くが心を持っているのはわかっていて 私はそのことは気にしていません

二番目に、もっと私たちに身近な 親、先生、配偶者、小説家としての 問題があります それは「他人の望みや信念を知るのは なぜこんなに難しいのか？」です もっと分かりやすく言えば 「他人の欲求や信念を変えるのはなぜこんなに難しいのか？」です

これについては小説家がうまく表現しています フィリップ・ロスのように： 「なのに我々は、こういう他人の重大事について どうしようというのか？ 我々は皆、相手の内面や、 隠された目的を思い描くことには 無力なのだ」 つまり教師として、配偶者として 私が日々直面している問題です しかし科学者として、私は他人の心に関する別の問題に関心を持っていて 今日ご紹介するのはそのことです その問題は「他人の心を知るのは なぜこんなに簡単なのか？」ということです

映像から始めますが 全く事前の情報なく 赤の他人のスナップ写真を見る場合でも この女性が何を考えているか推測できるでしょう この男性についても同じ 言葉を変えれば、問題の核心は 私たちが他人の心について考えるために使う機械、つまり― 脳細胞で出来た私たちの脳ですが その脳細胞は、他の動物、猿とか ネズミとか、ナマコにもあるのです しかしその脳細胞を特定のネットワークに組み合わせると ロミオとジュリエットを書けるような能力を得るのです あるいはアラン・グリーンスパンが言うように； 「君が『私が言ったことを理解した』と思っているのは知っているが、 君が『私の言ったことは私が言いたいことではない』と 認識したかは分からない」 （笑）

つまり私が専門の認知神経科学の分野では こういう考え方を ひとつひとつ検証していくのです そして、どうすればこの単純な単位、簡単なメッセージを 時間と空間のネットワークで組み立てて行って、 心について考える、人間の凄い能力が出来るのかを理解しようとするのです 今日は三つのことをお話しします 全体は大きすぎますから (1)他人の考えについて考えるための 脳の特定の領域の発見に関する 最初のステップについて、 (2)この困難な課題の処理を学習するシステムの ゆっくりとした発達の観察結果について、 (3)そして最後に、他人に評価を下すときの、 各個人の違いが脳のシステムの 違いで説明できる、ということについて

まずお話ししたいのは 人間の脳の一部には 他人の思考について考える機能があるということです これがその部分の図です 「右側頭頭頂接合部」（RTPJ）と呼ばれています 右の耳の後ろの上のところにあります そこは、私が絵を見せたときや、 あなたが「ロミオとジュリエット」を読むときや、 あるいはアラン・グリーンスパンを理解しようとする時に使われる領域です 他の論理的問題を解く時には使われません そこがRTPJです そしてこの図は、典型的な大人の集団での、平均的な 活動状態を示しています つまりMITの学生のことです （笑）

この脳システムについて、二番目にお話ししたいのは 人間の大人は、他人の考えを 理解するのがとても上手ですが いつもそうだったわけではありません 子供がこのシステムに到達するのには長い時間がかかります その長い期間のプロセスについて少しお話しします 最初にお見せするのは3歳と5歳の間の変化で、 その頃、子供は 他人が自分とは違った信念を持っているかも知れないことを理解するのです まず5歳の子供が、「誤った考え課題」という 標準的な課題を解いているところを ご覧に入れます

ビデオ：これが一人目の海賊よ　名前はアイヴァン 海賊は何が好きか知ってる？

チーズサンドイッチがすごく好きなの

子供：チーズ　チーズは僕も好きだよ！

RS：そう　アイヴァンはこのチーズサンドイッチを持ってて 言うの「おいしい、おいしい！ チーズサンドイッチが大好きだ」 アイヴァンはサンドイッチをこの宝箱の上に置くの そして言うの「お昼ご飯に飲み物がいるな」 それでアイヴァンは飲みものを取りに行くの アイヴァンが出かけている間に 風が吹いて サンドイッチは草の上に落ちてしまうの そこに別の海賊がやってくるの 名前はジョシュアよ ジョシュアもチーズサンドイッチが好きなの ジョシュアもサンドイッチを持っていて、言うの 「おいしいおいしい　チーズサンドイッチは大好きだ」 そして彼もサンドイッチをこの宝箱の上に置くの

子供：つまりこっちが彼のだね

RS：それがジョシュアの　その通りよ

子供：アイヴァンのは地面に落ちてるんだね

RS：そうよ　その通り

子供：彼にはどっちが彼のか分からないんだね

RS：そうよ　それでジョシュアも飲みものを取りに行く そこにアイヴァンが帰ってきて言うの「サンドイッチがほしい」 そこで質問：アイヴァンはどっちのサンドイッチを取るでしょう？

子供：こっちを取ると思うな

RS：そう　アイヴァンはこっちを取ると思うのね？　いいわ　見てみましょう その通り　正解ね　アイヴァンはこっちを取ったわ

つまり5歳児は他人が誤った考えを持ちえて その行動の結果がどうなるかを 明らかに理解しています さて、3歳児だと同じ問題でどうなるか お見せしましょう

ビデオ：RS：アイヴァンが言うの「チーズサンドイッチが欲しい」 彼はどっちのサンドイッチを取ると思う？ あっちを取ると思うのね　見てみましょう どうなるかしら　アイヴァンがやってきたわ 彼が言うの「チーズサンドイッチが欲しい」 そして、こっちを取ったの あらまあ　どうしてこっちを取ったんでしょう？

子供：彼のは落っこってる

RS：つまり、3歳児の行動は二つの点で異なっています まず、アイヴァンが、本当の彼のサンドイッチを取ると 予想していること 二つ目に、アイヴァンが元々置いたところにあるサンドイッチを取るのを見て、 彼が自分はサンドイッチをそこに置いたからそれを取るんだ、と説明すると 3歳児は別の説明を思いつくのです アイヴァンが彼自身のサンドイッチを取らないのは、それが欲しくないからで それは落ちて汚れているから、 だからアイヴァンは別のサンドイッチを取ろうとしている、と言うのです もちろん発達は5歳では止まりません 他人の考えについて考えることを学ぶプロセスは 持続しています そこで難易度を上げて 今度は子供に、行動の予想だけでなく 倫理的判断についても聞いてみます まず3歳児についてお見せします

ビデオ：RS：アイヴァンはジョシュアのサンドイッチを取ったから卑しいくて悪いわね？

子供：うん

RS：アイヴァンはジョシュアのサンドイッチを取ったからまずいことになるかしら？

子供：うん

RS：3歳児の場合、アイヴァンが、ジョシュアのサンドイッチを 自分の汚れたサンドイッチを食べたくないからといって ジョシュアのサンドイッチを取ったのは 卑しい事だと思っていると言えるでしょう しかし、今度は5歳児についてお見せします 5歳児はアイヴァンがジョシュアのサンドイッチを 取った理由を完全に分かっています

ビデオ：RS：アイヴァンはジョシュアのサンドイッチを 取るなんて卑しくていけないわね？

ここも：うーん、まあそうだね

RS：そして7歳になって初めて もっと大人らしい反応が見られます

ビデオ：RS：アイヴァンはジョシュアのサンドイッチを取ったから問題があるかしら？

子供：いいや　だって風が悪いんだよ

RS：彼はサンドイッチを取り替えたのは 風が悪いんだと言ってます （笑）

私たちの研究室では 子供を脳スキャナにかけて 他人の考えについて考える能力が発達するにつれて 脳で何が起きているかを調べています まず、子供の場合、このRTPJが、同様に 他人の考えについて考える時に使われることがわかりました しかし、大人の場合と同じではない

大人の場合は、お話ししたように 脳のこの部分は完全に特化されています 他の人の考えについて考える以外は何もしない 子供の場合はその程度が低く 5歳から8歳までは― つまりお見せした子供たちでは そしてさらに8歳から11歳の子供を見て行くと 思春期早期になっても まだ大人のような脳にはなっていないのです つまり、子供時代を通じて、また 思春期に至っても 認知システム、つまり— 他人の心について考える能力と それらを支える脳のシステムの両方が 継続的にゆっくりと発達しているのです

しかしもちろんお分かりでしょうが 大人になってからでも 人はそれぞれ他人の心について考える能力や、 それをどれくらい使うか、またその正確さが 異なるのです そこで知りたいのは、大人において、他人の考えについて 考える能力の違いが 脳のこの領域の違いで説明できるのか、ということです そこで、子供に対して行った海賊問題の 大人バージョンをやってみたのです それを今からやってみたいと思います

グレースと友人が化学工場に見学ツアーに来ています そしてそこでコーヒーブレイクになります グレースの友達がコーヒーに砂糖を入れてほしいと言います グレースはコーヒーを作りに行って コーヒーの脇に入れ物に 白い粉を見つけ、それは砂糖です しかしラベルには「致死性の毒」と書いてあります グレースはその粉が毒だと思って それを友達のコーヒーに入れます 友達はそれを飲みますが、何ともありません

ここにいる人で、グレースが粉をコーヒーに入れたのを 許せる人は何人いますか？ オーケー、よろしい　（笑） つまりこのケースでは、グレースがいわゆる 「傷害未遂」でどれくらい責められるべきかを問うています

それを別のケースと比較しますが、こちらでも 実際の状況は同じです つまり白い粉は砂糖ですが、違うのはグレースが考えていることです 今度は彼女は粉が砂糖だと思っています そして当然ながら、もしグレースが粉を砂糖だと思って 友達のコーヒーに入れても 彼女は何ら責められるべきことはありません 一方、もし彼女がそれを毒だと思っていて、実際は砂糖だった場合 人々は彼女は責められるに値すると考えるのです 実際の出来事が全く同じであってもです

それどころか、彼女は、 この「傷害未遂」の場合は、 さらにもう一つのケース、つまり 「事故」よりも責められるのです 「事故」では、グレースはその粉を砂糖だと思っています なぜならコーヒーメーカーの脇のそれは「砂糖」と書いてあるからで でも実際はその粉は毒なのです つまりその粉が毒で コーヒーを飲んだ友人が死んだとしても 人々は、グレースがあまり責められるべきではない、と言うのです なぜなら単にその粉が砂糖だと思っていただけなのだから もう一つのケースで、グレースが粉を毒だと思っていたが 実は何ともなかった場合よりもです

しかし人々は、「事故」の場合、 彼女がいったいどの程度責められるべきかについては いくらか異論を持ちます ある人たちは、彼女はもっと責められるべきだと考え、 他の人はそうでもない、と考えます そこで、このような判断をしている時の人間の脳では 何が起きているのか、をお見せします 図には、左から右へ向かって、 RTPJの活動のレベルを示しています そして上から下へ、グレースが どれくらい責められるべきかという程度です

お分かりのように、左側では RTPJの活動が非常に弱く 彼女の無実の信念にはあまり注意を払わずにいるので 事故に対してより大きく責めを受けるべきと言っています 他方、右側では、RTPJは活発に活動しており 人々は彼女の無実の信念にずっと多くの注意を払っていて 彼女が、事故についてはあまり責任がないと 主張しているのです

それはそれでいいわけですが、 脳のこの部分の機能を妨害し 人の倫理的判断を 変えてみることはできないでしょうか そしてそういうツールが実際にあるのです 「経頭蓋磁気刺激法」あるいは TMSと呼ばれます これは磁気パルスを、頭蓋骨を通して 脳の狭い領域に当てる道具で その領域のニューロンの機能を一時的に麻痺させることができます

デモでお見せしましょう まずこれが磁気パルスであることをお見せします その機械に25セント硬貨を載せます クリックが聞こえた時、その機械がオンになっています 同じパルスを私の脳に当てます 私の手をコントロールしている領域にです 物理的な力でなく磁気パルスです

ビデオ：女性：いい？　RS：いいわよ

磁気パルスで私の手がわずかに不随意の動作をしています 脳に与えた磁気パルスのせいです その同じ磁気パルスを RTPJに当てて 人間の倫理判断に影響を与えるかを調べたのです お見せしているのは、前に示した、普通の状態の人間の倫理判断です そこでRTPJに磁気パルスを与えてから 人の倫理判断が変わるかを調べます まず分かるのは、全体としては同じ結果になっている、ということです

問題がない時の倫理判断は同じ 彼女は何も責められるべきではない しかし「傷害未遂」の場合、つまり グレースは毒だと思ったが、実際は砂糖だった場合 コーヒーに粉を入れたことに関して、人々は、 より「オーケー」、あまり責めない側に寄っています

そして「事故」の場合、つまり彼女は砂糖だと思ったが 実際は毒で、人を殺した場合、 人々はそれをより「オーケー」でない、もっと責めるべきとしています つまり今日お話ししたのは 人々は、実際のところ、他人の考えについて考える 準備がかなりよくできている、ということです

私たちは他人の考えについて 自分で考えるための特別の脳領域を持っている それは、発達するのに時間がかかり、 幼少期から思春期早期にかけてゆっくりと発達する そして大人になってからも、この部分の差が 大人の間での、他人を評価する時の考え方の 違いの元になっているということです

最後に小説の言葉に戻ります フィリップ・ロスは最後にこう言って終わる： 「人を正しく見るのが 人生じゃない 人を誤解することが人生なのだ どんどん誤解していって そこでもう一度よく考えて また誤解するんだ」 どうもありがとう （拍手）

クリス・アンダーソン：あなたが磁気パルスを使って 倫理判断を変える話を始めたとき 危険な感じがしました （笑） まさか、たとえばペンタゴンから電話は来てませんよね

レベッカ・サックス：いいえ つまり電話は来てるんですが、私が取ってないんです （笑）

CA：本当に電話してきているの？（RS：黙ってうなづく） つまり、これは真面目な話ですが あなたは夜中に目覚めたまま、この仕事が どういうところへ行き着くか考えますか つまりあなたはもちろんすばらしい人ですが でも誰かがこの知識を使って 将来いつか 拷問室でなくとも ここにいる人たちが心配するようなことをするんじゃないかと

RS：はい　そういう心配をしています そこでTMSについて二三申し上げますが 気づかれずにTMSを受けることはありません つまりこっそり出来ることではないんです こういう小さな変化を起こすのさえ、とても難しいんです ここでお見せした変化は、私にとっては 脳の機能を示すものなので印象的なことです しかし実際に倫理判断に与える 影響の規模は小さいんです

さらに、変えたのは、被験者が 自分が何かの行動を選択する時に どうするか、という倫理判断ではありません 変えたのは、他人の行動を判断する能力です つまりどちらかというと犯罪裁判の 被告でなく 陪審員を研究しているわけです

CA：あなたの研究は、教育について、特に 次の世代がより公平な倫理判断をできるための 推奨策につながるでしょうか？

RS：それは理想的な希望ですね このような、脳機能の特定の機能に関する研究は まったく新しいものです 最近まで、私たちが脳について知っているのは 他の動物でもできるようなことについてばかりでした 動物モデルでも研究できたのです 脳がどうものも見るか、身体を制御するか、 どう聞いたり感じたりするか、などです 人間の脳のユニークな機能の 理解に関する研究、つまり 言語学習、抽象概念、 他人の考えについて考えることなどは、全く新しい研究です そういうものを理解することがどんな結果をもたらすかは まだ分かっていないのです

CA：最後の質問です　「意識のハード・プロブレム」と 呼ばれるものがあって 多くの人たちが疑問に思っています 分かりやすく言えば なぜ脳は機能するのか、ということです しかし、なぜ人は、何かを感じなくてはならないのでしょう？ 何かを感じる器官が、なぜ行動するためには 必要なのでしょうか？ あなたはすばらしい神経科学者です つまり、あなたか、あなたのような誰かが そのキャリアの間において 解決不能と思われていた課題を理解できるような 何らかのパラダイムシフトをもたらす 可能性があると思いますか？

RS：そうなればよいと思いますが、多分そうはならないでしょう

CA：なぜ？

そうでなければ意識の「ハード・プロブレム」などとは呼ばれないからです （笑）

CA：すごい答えです　レベッカ・サクス、どうもありがとう　すばらしかったです （拍手）

गेनेटिक

Maker Faire
By tito on 29 May 2010 - 7 comments

Thank you everyone who came out to visit us at Maker Faire!

Here’s a great video of our booth put together by Jeri Ellsworth. Thanks, Jeri!

Stewart Nails GOP For Flip Flopping On Escrow Fund (VIDEO)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Day 62 - The Strife Aquatic
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Joe Barton's apology to BP continued to provide fodder for Stewart and "The Daily Show" during Monday night's episode. Stewart noted that The Republican Study Committee, which includes 114 GOP Congressman as members, endorsed the talking point that Obama was extorting a private industry. After comparing Joe Barton to legendary Chicago scapegoat Steve Bartman, Stewart pointed out the countless Republicans distancing themselves from Barton's "shakedown" statements despite being openly against the fund in the first place.

Stewart got some great material from a always reilable source, Michele Bachmann. who reneged on her statements from just a few days prior. A flabbergasted Stewart asked: "Am I the only one of the two of us who listens to what you say?"

TEDxTokyo Jake Shimabukuro - 05/15/10 (English)

Few people would consider the ukulele a serious musical instrument. Until, that is, they hear Jake Shimabukuro play one. Jakes uncommon compositions and playing techniques defy labels and categories, and he lays down jazz, blues, funk, classical, bluegrass, folk, flamenco and rock with equal virtuosity. Occasional tours with Jimmy Buffett & The Coral Reefer Band have broadened his experience and brought his talent and charming stage presence to crowds of up to fifty thousand people. Jake has also performed on NBCs The Late Show with Conan OBrien, The Today Show, and Last Call With Carson Daly, and been featured on NPRs Morning Edition and World Café, Public Radio Internationals The World, and others. In December 2009, he performed with Bette Midler for Queen Elizabeth during a special fundraising concert in Blackpool, England.

広島風お好み焼き - OKONOMIYAKI Hiroshima style -

広島風お好み焼き - OKONOMIYAKI　Hiroshima style -


OKONOMIYAKI

たこ焼き たこ吉 [ Making of The TAKOYAKI ]

たこ焼き「たこ吉」

大玉のたこ焼き６個（ソース＋マヨネーズ） ３００円より各種あり

Taiyaki Chefs

Cold Stone Creamery Extreme Video #3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhm1feWuVpM

Star Wars: The Old Republic

Star Wars: The Old Republic

A MMO in the vein of the acclaimed KOTOR series, The Old Republic is a story-driven MMO set three hundred years after the first two KOTOR games, focusing on the battle between a new Sith Empire that has arisen and the Galactic Republic struggling for control of the galaxy.

The 3rd annual Microsoft promotion of Xbox Live Arcade games.

ps3

E3 2010

E3 2010

The 2010 Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) took place at the Los Angeles Convention Center in Los Angeles, California on June 15-17.

अस्सस्सिं

Fault Lines- In Deep Water: A Way of Life in Peril

In the two months since the Deepwater Horizon explosion, millions of litres of oil have gushed out of BP's well into the water each day, slowly encroaching on the coastline. Fault Lines' Avi Lewis travels to the drill zone, and learns about the erosion in the wetlands from industry canals and pipelines, the health problems blamed on contaminated air and water from petrochemical refineries.

Audio Podcast:What I Wish I Knew When I Was 20

Description
Tina Seelig, Executive Director for the Stanford Technology Ventures Program, provides insights on life, leadership, and the little things that make a big difference in an entrepreneurial setting.

T-Rex in the Rockies: Warrior or Wimp? -

Vegetarian dolmas - The Hairy Bikers - BBC

The Hairy Bikers teach you how to make a delicious vegetarian mezze platter. This clip concentrates on the best way to make dolmas, or stuffed vine leaves. Great recipe idea from BBC cooking show Hairy Bikers Cook Book

Crispy Vietnamese beef - The Hairy Bikers - BBC

Simon King, one of the Hairy Bikers falls off the dock in Vietnam during filming leaving Dave Myers alone to cook a delicious crispy beef recipe. Great idea for dinner from BBC cooking show Hairy Bikers Cook Book.

Crab and fish vermicelli Soup - The Hairy Bikers - BBC

The Hairy Bikers explain how to make a delicious crab and fish vermicelli soup. Great recipe idea from the popular BBC show. Watch more high quality videos on the new BBC Worldwide YouTube channel here

鳳山生明社區關懷據點交流-

高雄縣鳳山市生明社區關懷照顧據點，為讓社區志工具更多視野，見習其它社區營造之優點，供自己社區更具競爭，與做更好的社區老人照顧，來關懷社區老人福址，特地與頂菜園社區老人照顧關懷站，做跨社區交流與分享營造經驗。

阿吉嫂旅行團農村踏賾

高雄市左營區新庒地區的阿吉哥與阿吉嫂，一個月前在網路搜尋到，嘉義新港板頭頂菜園，這景點蠻不錯的地方，可回味坐山寨版五分仔小火車走大路新體驗，看著頂菜園鄉土館陳列早期農村古物、台灣農村諺語、詼諧俏語的導覽人員解說，感受到一趟知性之旅的樂趣。

成大醫學院多媒體走訪農村

成功大學醫學院多媒體資訊課程，走訪農村之行，來到了板頭社區參訪，捕捉最原始的農村風味之景，學員快門拍攝農村美景，坐著公舊縣營公車欣賞，全國最大跤趾陶剪黏大壁畫，感受農村生活氣息。

2010 Oyster Jubilee (New Orleans, LA)

2010 Oyster Jubilee (New Orleans, LA)
Yearly, along Bourbon Street.
You can’t visit New Orleans without feasting on the bread bound mainstay: The Po’ Boy. Historically the sandwich is a mashup of whatever scraps you could find, thrown into a classic Leidehiemer roll. Today, Po’ Boy’s can be found jam packed with roast beef, crisp catfish, plump shrimp or my favorite: OYSTERS!

In this episode of VendrTV we visited the 2010 Oyster Jubilee, a celebration of seafood and creole cookin’ at it’s best. And not only did we feast on Po’ Boy, we witnessed a world record: The Creation of the World’s Longest Po’ Boy Sandwich! Yum.

El Palacio de los Jugos (Miami, FL)

El Palacio de los Jugos (Miami, FL)
5721 West Flagler Street
Not all street food’s on wheels – in fact, for centuries cultures have eaten their version of street food in open air outdoor markets and bazaars. In Miami, part of that tradition lives on at El Palacio de los Jugos – The Juice Palace. The name first came from their original business – creating delicious fresh juices from classic Cuban fruits and veggies. However, today the Palace in Palacio certainly shines strong! The place is a mecca of classic Cuban culture and cuisine. From Cafe Cubana (Cuban Coffee) to Chicharon (friend pork rinds), El Palacio offers some of the most amazing Cuban cuisine I’ve had here in The States.

Find out how one inventor plans to make motorcycles fly. And then, tune in to see a kayak that folds.

http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/june-2010/daily-planet---june-16-2010/#clip314964

Check out this new volcanic sport, we guarantee you won't be "bored." And then, see how specially made sprint shoes are helped the 2012 Olympic athlet

http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/june-2010/daily-planet---june-16-2010/#clip314957

Construction for the G8 takes this phrase to a greener level. Learn how

http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/june-2010/daily-planet---june-17-2010/#clip315053

Y Combinator Gives A Crash Course On What It’s Like To ‘Work At A Startup’

Y Combinator Gives A Crash Course On What It’s Like To ‘Work At A Startup’
Posted: 17 Jun 2010 08:31 PM PDT



Watch live video from Y Combinator on Justin.tv



Tonight at its headquarters in Mountain View, California, Y Combinator invited dozens of programmers to a new event called Work at a Startup. The event, which was announced last month, is meant to help expose programmers to what they should expect when they go about joining a startup (YC’s Paul Graham thinks that a lot of them tend to join more established companies like Microsoft simply because startup life seems so nebulous). The event is complementary to Y Combinator’s Startup School, which is meant to help entrepreneurs start a company from scratch. My notes from the event are below, and you can watch an archived video of the event here.


The event kicked off with a talk from Graham, who detailed what programmers should think about when they’re debating whether or not to join a startup.

Graham says that the two main things that prospective employees should be gauging are fun and money. You obviously want to maximize both, and the startup end of the job market is the “bargain”, because you can have fun and make a lot of money. Assuming, of course, you pick the right startup.

The second thing you need to figure out, Graham says, is whether or not the startup lifestyle is really for you. In general, he’s found that startup founders who join a large company after being acquired aren’t as happy in their new home as they were when they were running the show. The reason? Bureaucracy. There are meetings and you have to ask for permission to get things done — things that aren’t issues at most startups.

Graham says that some people (and all founders) are like that. But others aren’t. The way to tell, he says, is to ask yourself if you like the prospect of having (and implementing) many ideas at work, in which case a startup is probably the place for you. If you don’t think having ideas are a part of the job, then he says you’re probably better suited for corporate culture.

The next step is figuring out which startup you want to work at. Graham says this is actually a lot like being an investor, the difference being that investors are giving startups their time and money, while you’re giving them your work. So how do you tell which startups are promising? The secret, Graham says, is to look at the founders — even if they have an unsexy company or domain, if you have great founders, the company is more likely to go on to great things.

Alright, so you’ve found a great startup — can you expect to make a lot of money? This varies a lot, depending on how early you’re joining. Graham says that if you’ve found a startup that you want to join, you should do it quickly, because things can change fast (and the amount of equity you can expect can drop precipitously). He relayed an anecdote about a company Yahoo was thinking about acquiring for $1 billion a few years ago. After mulling it over for a few months, Yahoo agreed to pay $1 billion, at which point the company told them they’d grown and now wanted $2 billion (the unnamed company sounds a whole lot like Facebook). Moral of the story: don’t sit around thinking about things too long when startups are involved.

As for how much equity you can expect, Graham says that at the high-end, for a one-founder company with no employees, you may be able to get 50%. From there, things drop quickly — if you’re talking to a company with two founders and angel funding, you may be able to get 5-10%. Post series A, it’s hard to get more than 1%. The trade-off here is risk — most companies never get to their Series A.

Ultimately, Graham says that when you’re joining a startup, you’re looking for a company that is undervalued for the stage it is at, and that’s most likely to eventually IPO. Of course, that’s all easier said than done.

The event then switched to pitch mode, when over thirty startups gave a whirlwind series of presentations telling the audience why they should join them (it was like a speed dating job fair for startups).




CrunchBase Information
Y Combinator

The problem with game consoles

BERKELEY, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- There is a confluence of events taking place that has the potential to ruin or radically change the game console business.

This business is dominated by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT 26.40, -0.04, -0.15%) , Sony Corp. (SNE 27.83, -0.06, -0.21%) and Nintendo Ltd. (NTDOY 39.23, +1.18, +3.10%) . These companies are adjusting their models as fast as they can, but may be doomed by the rise of the tablet computer and HDMI.

The problem for the game consoles is simple, the new machine refresh rate is too slow. In other words new game consoles that are completely backward-compatible with older game consoles seems to take an eternity to be developed when compared to the constant improvement in speed, lower cost and capabilities of computers themselves.

The problem with game consoles

JOHN DVORAK'S SECOND OPINION
Commentary: Industry giants need to speed up the pace of development
digits: Nintendo focus on 3-D without the glasses
A 3-D experience without special glasses is a challenge that has foiled television makers. But portable devices may be a different story, as Nintendo hopes to prove with a high-profile game system unveiled this week. Daisuke Wakabayashi explains.

When you consider the fact that a game console is just a specialized computer, you have to wonder why these companies cannot pick up the pace.

I've often thought about this and determined that it is because these companies are not computer companies and are not used to the faster pace. But Sony is a computer company and Microsoft knows the ropes.

So what's wrong? In the process they are making their entire industry obsolete.

Take, for example, the Xbox line from Microsoft. The original console was released in 2001 and the system was upgraded and re-released in 2005. In four years one generation of console was managed. This, at the time this was considered phenomenal.

And it was phenomenal by the standards of game consoles.

Look at Sony. It showed its original Playstation console in 1992 and couldn't ship it until 1994. It was six years later in 2000 that it managed to release its upgraded and new PS2 which became a runaway best seller. Another six years passed and the PS3 was released.

If Microsoft could keep up a seemingly mild pace of upgrades every four years it would be on to new generation of machines already. We'd be waiting two more years to get anything from Sony.

Microsoft is following the slow pace of Sony.

This would all be fine if nothing else in the universe was going on. Enter the iPad (AAPL 273.96, -0.11, -0.04%) .

The iPad was never designed to be a replacement for a game console, but it is already showing signs of being a replacement for the Nintendo DS-type of handheld gaming device.

Computers show generational shifts every 18 months, not every six years. Within the next two years the iPad-type device using a modern HDMI connector will be shown with game controllers and games that will easily top the capability of the game console. If they just get close, add another 18 months to the timeline and the consoles will be toast for sure.

And what you are going to see is another trend, the universality of top games. During the console wars, certain games could only be played on certain consoles. These exclusive deals are falling by the wayside because the market is so large that exclusive deals cannot make up for lost sales on competing platforms.

This marketing math will worsen when the iPad, Android Pad and others reach a critical mass of users. This will mean selling pads at a 5-million-per quarter rate, about the same sales as consoles. This sales rate could be achieved by this time next year.

It will take another year before the potential for these devices is fully realized.

This can all be thwarted by a concerted effort by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo to up the ante and pick up the pace of new console releases.

Because the entire industry is perceived as a razor-blade business whereby you lose money on the consoles and make money on proprietary games, picking up the pace is an expensive proposition that these companies will not do.

That model will be the end of them eventually.

Decades of high unemployment likely

Decades of high unemployment likely

Baker: Current policies more concerned with deficit than solving unemployment crisis





Bio

Dean Baker is co-director of The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of several books including, The United States Since 1980; Social Security: The Phony Crisis (with Mark Weisbrot); and The Benefits of Full Employment (with Jared Bernstein). He appears frequently on TV and radio programs, including CNN, CBS News, PBS NewsHour, and National Public Radio.

100 top toxic air polluters in USA

100 top toxic air polluters in USA
Michael Ash: The EPA needs more regulation, not just "inform the public"

'EVOKE gamers tackle the world's most urgent challenges" - live on CNN

EVOKE trailer (a new online game) from Alchemy on Vimeo.

"Tune" in as Alan Nursall turns up the volume on vinyl.

http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/june-2010/daily-planet---june-14-2010/#clip313517

Eco-friendly, efficient and comes with fries. Watch how the Müvbox is changing restaurants.

http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/june-2010/daily-planet---june-11-2010/#clip313020

Find out how the Bay of Fundy keeps alternative energy on track. And then, check out what secretive powers Seaweed might have.

http://watch.discoverychannel.ca/daily-planet/june-2010/daily-planet---june-11-2010/#clip313014

Mad Avenue Blues:

Following on the success of the Wall Street Meltdown parodies, I wrote Mad Avenue Blues. Like Wall Street Meltdown and WSM Redux (both on YouTube), the new video takes a popular song and substitutes industry-specific lyrics. Only instead of finance, Mad Avenue Blues is about the media/advertising world and the impact to the traditional models brought about by the accelerating migration to digital.

Sung to Don McLean's "American Pie", this 19 stanza song was written and produced in just one day. I did this so that I could answer those who respond to my video projects with the knee-jerk "you obviously have too much time on your hands".

Mad Avenue Blues was produced for non-commercial amusement purposes only and is not intended to offend any people or companies appearing in the video. All images were found on the internet and are the property of their rights owners.

L. McDuff
(pen name - for my Yellow Labrador, Lady McDuff)

The next big thing in retail?

Intel has developed a proof-of-concept shopping display that uses transparent touch screen technologies and a holographic glass screen. Shoppers can make purchases virtually while in the store. The kiosk is smart enough to analyze physical attributes such as height and gender and then offer clothing recommendations. SmartPlanet correspondent Sumi Das tests it out.

Future of... clothes

Would you like to charge your mobile phone without ever having to plug into an electrical outlet? The University of California at Berkeley and Stanford University are both developing materials to enable the storage of energy inside clothing. Smart Planet correspondent Sumi Das explores the schools' work on "smart" clothes.

Tainted Meat

Tainted Meat
Stephanie Smith's reaction to a strain of E. coli was extreme, but neither the system meant to make meat safe, nor the meat itself, is what consumers have been led to believe.
http://video.nytimes.com/video/playlist/health/1194811622283/index.html#1194817109016


The Burger That Shattered Her Life
By MICHAEL MOSS
Stephanie Smith, a children’s dance instructor, thought she had a stomach virus. The aches and cramping were tolerable that first day, and she finished her classes.

Then her diarrhea turned bloody. Her kidneys shut down. Seizures knocked her unconscious. The convulsions grew so relentless that doctors had to put her in a coma for nine weeks. When she emerged, she could no longer walk. The affliction had ravaged her nervous system and left her paralyzed.

Ms. Smith, 22, was found to have a severe form of food-borne illness caused by E. coli, which Minnesota officials traced to the hamburger that her mother had grilled for their Sunday dinner in early fall 2007.

“I ask myself every day, ‘Why me?’ and ‘Why from a hamburger?’ ”Ms. Smith said. In the simplest terms, she ran out of luck in a food-safety game of chance whose rules and risks are not widely known.

Meat companies and grocers have been barred from selling ground beef tainted by the virulent strain of E. coli known as O157:H7 since 1994, after an outbreak at Jack in the Box restaurants left four children dead. Yet tens of thousands of people are still sickened annually by this pathogen, federal health officials estimate, with hamburger being the biggest culprit. Ground beef has been blamed for 16 outbreaks in the last three years alone, including the one that left Ms. Smith paralyzed from the waist down. This summer, contamination led to the recall of beef from nearly 3,000 grocers in 41 states.

Ms. Smith’s reaction to the virulent strain of E. coli was extreme, but tracing the story of her burger, through interviews and government and corporate records obtained by The New York Times, shows why eating ground beef is still a gamble. Neither the system meant to make the meat safe, nor the meat itself, is what consumers have been led to believe.

Ground beef is usually not simply a chunk of meat run through a grinder. Instead, records and interviews show, a single portion of hamburger meat is often an amalgam of various grades of meat from different parts of cows and even from different slaughterhouses. These cuts of meat are particularly vulnerable to E. coli contamination, food experts and officials say. Despite this, there is no federal requirement for grinders to test their ingredients for the pathogen.

The frozen hamburgers that the Smiths ate, which were made by the food giant Cargill, were labeled “American Chef’s Selection Angus Beef Patties.” Yet confidential grinding logs and other Cargill records show that the hamburgers were made from a mix of slaughterhouse trimmings and a mash-like product derived from scraps that were ground together at a plant in Wisconsin. The ingredients came from slaughterhouses in Nebraska, Texas and Uruguay, and from a South Dakota company that processes fatty trimmings and treats them with ammonia to kill bacteria.

Using a combination of sources — a practice followed by most large producers of fresh and packaged hamburger — allowed Cargill to spend about 25 percent less than it would have for cuts of whole meat.

Those low-grade ingredients are cut from areas of the cow that are more likely to have had contact with feces, which carries E. coli, industry research shows. Yet Cargill, like most meat companies, relies on its suppliers to check for the bacteria and does its own testing only after the ingredients are ground together. The United States Department of Agriculture, which allows grinders to devise their own safety plans, has encouraged them to test ingredients first as a way of increasing the chance of finding contamination.

Unwritten agreements between some companies appear to stand in the way of ingredient testing. Many big slaughterhouses will sell only to grinders who agree not to test their shipments for E. coli, according to officials at two large grinding companies. Slaughterhouses fear that one grinder’s discovery of E. coli will set off a recall of ingredients they sold to others.

“Ground beef is not a completely safe product,” said Dr. Jeffrey Bender, a food safety expert at the University of Minnesota who helped develop systems for tracing E. coli contamination. He said that while outbreaks had been on the decline, “unfortunately it looks like we are going a bit in the opposite direction.”

Food scientists have registered increasing concern about the virulence of this pathogen since only a few stray cells can make someone sick, and they warn that federal guidance to cook meat thoroughly and to wash up afterward is not sufficient. A test by The Times found that the safe handling instructions are not enough to prevent the bacteria from spreading in the kitchen.

Cargill, whose $116.6 billion in revenues last year made it the country’s largest private company, declined requests to interview company officials or visit its facilities. “Cargill is not in a position to answer your specific questions, other than to state that we are committed to continuous improvement in the area of food safety,” the company said, citing continuing litigation.

The meat industry treats much of its practices and the ingredients in ground beef as trade secrets. While the Department of Agriculture has inspectors posted in plants and has access to production records, it also guards those secrets. Federal records released by the department through the Freedom of Information Act blacked out details of Cargill’s grinding operation that could be learned only through copies of the documents obtained from other sources. Those documents illustrate the restrained approach to enforcement by a department whose missions include ensuring meat safety and promoting agriculture markets.

Within weeks of the Cargill outbreak in 2007, U.S.D.A. officials swept across the country, conducting spot checks at 224 meat plants to assess their efforts to combat E. coli. Although inspectors had been monitoring these plants all along, officials found serious problems at 55 that were failing to follow their own safety plans.

“Every time we look, we find out that things are not what we hoped they would be,” said Loren D. Lange, an executive associate in the Agriculture Department’s food safety division.

In the weeks before Ms. Smith’s patty was made, federal inspectors had repeatedly found that Cargill was violating its own safety procedures in handling ground beef, but they imposed no fines or sanctions, records show. After the outbreak, the department threatened to withhold the seal of approval that declares “U.S. Inspected and Passed by the Department of Agriculture.”

In the end, though, the agency accepted Cargill’s proposal to increase its scrutiny of suppliers. That agreement came early last year after contentious negotiations, records show. When Cargill defended its safety system and initially resisted making some changes, an agency official wrote back: “How is food safety not the ultimate issue?”

The Risk

On Aug. 16, 2007, the day Ms. Smith’s hamburger was made, the No.3 grinder at the Cargill plant in Butler, Wis., started up at 6:50 a.m. The largest ingredient was beef trimmings known as “50/50” — half fat, half meat — that cost about 60 cents a pound, making them the cheapest component.

Cargill bought these trimmings — fatty edges sliced from better cuts of meat — from Greater Omaha Packing, where some 2,600 cattle are slaughtered daily and processed in a plant the size of four football fields.

As with other slaughterhouses, the potential for contamination is present every step of the way, according to workers and federal inspectors. The cattle often arrive with smears of feedlot feces that harbor the E. coli pathogen, and the hide must be removed carefully to keep it off the meat. This is especially critical for trimmings sliced from the outer surface of the carcass.

Federal inspectors based at the plant are supposed to monitor the hide removal, but much can go wrong. Workers slicing away the hide can inadvertently spread feces to the meat, and large clamps that hold the hide during processing sometimes slip and smear the meat with feces, the workers and inspectors say.

Greater Omaha vacuums and washes carcasses with hot water and lactic acid before sending them to the cutting floor. But these safeguards are not foolproof.

“As the trimmings are going down the processing line into combos or boxes, no one is inspecting every single piece,” said one federal inspector who monitored Greater Omaha and requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

The E. coli risk is also present at the gutting station, where intestines are removed, the inspector said

Every five seconds or so, half of a carcass moves into the meat-cutting side of the slaughterhouse, where trimmers said they could keep up with the flow unless they spot any remaining feces.

“We would step in and stop the line, and do whatever you do to take it off,” said Esley Adams, a former supervisor who said he was fired this summer after 16 years following a dispute over sick leave. “But that doesn’t mean everything was caught.”

Two current employees said the flow of carcasses keeps up its torrid pace even when trimmers get reassigned, which increases pressure on workers. To protest one such episode, the employees said, dozens of workers walked off the job for a few hours earlier this year. Last year, workers sued Greater Omaha, alleging that they were not paid for the time they need to clean contaminants off their knives and other gear before and after their shifts. The company is contesting the lawsuit.

Greater Omaha did not respond to repeated requests to interview company officials. In a statement, a company official said Greater Omaha had a “reputation for embracing new food safety technology and utilizing science to make the safest product possible.”

The Trimmings

In making hamburger meat, grinders aim for a specific fat content — 26.6 percent in the lot that Ms. Smith’s patty came from, company records show. To offset Greater Omaha’s 50/50 trimmings, Cargill added leaner material from three other suppliers.

Records show that some came from a Texas slaughterhouse, Lone Star Beef Processors, which specializes in dairy cows and bulls too old to be fattened in feedlots. In a form letter dated two days before Ms. Smith’s patty was made, Lone Star recounted for Cargill its various safety measures but warned “to this date there is no guarantee for pathogen-free raw material and we would like to stress the importance of proper handling of all raw products.”

Ms. Smith’s burger also contained trimmings from a slaughterhouse in Uruguay, where government officials insist that they have never found E. coli O157:H7 in meat. Yet audits of Uruguay’s meat operations conducted by the U.S.D.A. have found sanitation problems, including improper testing for the pathogen. Dr. Hector J. Lazaneo, a meat safety official in Uruguay, said the problems were corrected immediately. “Everything is fine, finally,” he said. “That is the reason we are exporting.”

Cargill’s final source was a supplier that turns fatty trimmings into what it calls “fine lean textured beef.” The company, Beef Products Inc., said it bought meat that averages between 50 percent and 70 percent fat, including “any small pieces of fat derived from the normal breakdown of the beef carcass.” It warms the trimmings, removes the fat in a centrifuge and treats the remaining product with ammonia to kill E. coli.

With seven million pounds produced each week, the company’s product is widely used in hamburger meat sold by grocers and fast-food restaurants and served in the federal school lunch program. Ten percent of Ms. Smith’s burger came from Beef Products, which charged Cargill about $1.20 per pound, or 20 cents less than the lean trimmings in the burger, billing records show.

An Iowa State University study financed by Beef Products found that ammonia reduces E. coli to levels that cannot be detected. The Department of Agriculture accepted the research as proof that the treatment was effective and safe. And Cargill told the agency after the outbreak that it had ruled out Beef Products as the possible source of contamination.

But federal school lunch officials found E. coli in Beef Products material in 2006 and 2008 and again in August, and stopped it from going to schools, according to Agriculture Department records and interviews. A Beef Products official, Richard Jochum, said that last year’s contamination stemmed from a “minor change in our process,” which the company adjusted. The company did not respond to questions about the latest finding.

In combining the ingredients, Cargill was following a common industry practice of mixing trim from various suppliers to hit the desired fat content for the least money, industry officials said.

In all, the ingredients for Ms. Smith’s burger cost Cargill about $1 a pound, company records show, or about 30 cents less than industry experts say it would cost for ground beef made from whole cuts of meat.

Ground beef sold by most grocers is made from a blend of ingredients, industry officials said. Agriculture Department regulations also allow hamburger meat labeled ground chuck or sirloin to contain trimmings from those parts of the cow. At a chain like Publix Super Markets, customers who want hamburger made from whole cuts of meat have to buy a steak and have it specially ground, said a Publix spokeswoman, Maria Brous, or buy a product like Bubba Burgers, which boasts on its labeling, “100% whole muscle means no trimmings.”

To finish off the Smiths’ ground beef, Cargill added bread crumbs and spices, fashioned it into patties, froze them and packed them 18 to a carton.

The listed ingredients revealed little of how the meat was made. There was just one meat product listed: “Beef.”

Tension Over Testing

As it fed ingredients into its grinders, Cargill watched for some unwanted elements. Using metal detectors, workers snagged stray nails and metal hooks that could damage the grinders, then warned suppliers to make sure it did not happen again.

But when it came to E. coli O157:H7, Cargill did not screen the ingredients and only tested once the grinding was done. The potential pitfall of this practice surfaced just weeks before Ms. Smith’s patty was made. A company spot check in May 2007 found E. coli in finished hamburger, which Cargill disclosed to investigators in the wake of the October outbreak. But Cargill told them it could not determine which supplier had shipped the tainted meat since the ingredients had already been mixed together.

“Our finished ground products typically contain raw materials from numerous suppliers,” Dr. Angela Siemens, the technical services vice president for Cargill’s meat division, wrote to the U.S.D.A. “Consequently, it is not possible to implicate a specific supplier without first observing a pattern of potential contamination.”

Testing has been a point of contention since the 1994 ban on selling ground beef contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 was imposed. The department moved to require some bacterial testing of ground beef, but the industry argued that the cost would unfairly burden small producers, industry officials said. The Agriculture Department opted to carry out its own tests for E. coli, but it acknowledges that its 15,000 spot checks a year at thousands of meat plants and groceries nationwide is not meant to be comprehensive. Many slaughterhouses and processors have voluntarily adopted testing regimes, yet they vary greatly in scope from plant to plant.

The retail giant Costco is one of the few big producers that tests trimmings for E. coli before grinding, a practice it adopted after a New York woman was sickened in 1998 by its hamburger meat, prompting a recall.

Craig Wilson, Costco’s food safety director, said the company decided it could not rely on its suppliers alone. “It’s incumbent upon us,” he said. “If you say, ‘Craig, this is what we’ve done,’ I should be able to go, ‘Cool, I believe you.’ But I’m going to check.”

Costco said it had found E. coli in foreign and domestic beef trimmings and pressured suppliers to fix the problem. But even Costco, with its huge buying power, said it had met resistance from some big slaughterhouses. “Tyson will not supply us,” Mr. Wilson said. “They don’t want us to test.”

A Tyson spokesman, Gary Mickelson, would not respond to Costco’s accusation, but said, “We do not and cannot” prohibit grinders from testing ingredients. He added that since Tyson tests samples of its trimmings, “we don’t believe secondary testing by grinders is a necessity.”

The food safety officer at American Foodservice, which grinds 365 million pounds of hamburger a year, said it stopped testing trimmings a decade ago because of resistance from slaughterhouses. “They would not sell to us,” said Timothy P. Biela, the officer. “If I test and it’s positive, I put them in a regulatory situation. One, I have to tell the government, and two, the government will trace it back to them. So we don’t do that.”

The surge in outbreaks since 2007 has led to finger-pointing within the industry.

Dennis R. Johnson, a lobbyist for the largest meat processors, has said that not all slaughterhouses are looking hard enough for contamination. He told U.S.D.A. officials last fall that those with aggressive testing programs typically find E. coli in as much as 1 percent to 2 percent of their trimmings, yet some slaughterhouses implicated in outbreaks had failed to find any.

At the same time, the meat processing industry has resisted taking the onus on itself. An Agriculture Department survey of more than 2,000 plants taken after the Cargill outbreak showed that half of the grinders did not test their finished ground beef for E. coli; only 6 percent said they tested incoming ingredients at least four times a year.

In October 2007, the agency issued a notice recommending that processors conduct at least a few tests a year to verify the testing done by slaughterhouses. But after resistance from the industry, the department allowed suppliers to run the verification checks on their own operations.

In August 2008, the U.S.D.A. issued a draft guideline again urging, but not ordering, processors to test ingredients before grinding. “Optimally, every production lot should be sampled and tested before leaving the supplier and again before use at the receiver,” the draft guideline said.

But the department received critical comments on the guideline, which has not been made official. Industry officials said that the cost of testing could unfairly burden small processors and that slaughterhouses already test. In an October 2008 letter to the department, the American Association of Meat Processors said the proposed guideline departed from U.S.D.A.’s strategy of allowing companies to devise their own safety programs, “thus returning to more of the agency’s ‘command and control’ mind-set.”

Dr. Kenneth Petersen, an assistant administrator with the department’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, said that the department could mandate testing, but that it needed to consider the impact on companies as well as consumers. “I have to look at the entire industry, not just what is best for public health,” Dr. Petersen said.

Tracing the Illness

The Smiths were slow to suspect the hamburger. Ms. Smith ate a mostly vegetarian diet, and when she grew increasingly ill, her mother, Sharon, thought the cause might be spinach, which had been tied to a recent E. coli outbreak.

Five days after the family’s Sunday dinner, Ms. Smith was admitted to St. Cloud Hospital in excruciating pain. “I’ve had women tell me that E. coli is more painful than childbirth,” said Dr. Phillip I. Tarr, a pathogen expert at Washington University in St. Louis.

The vast majority of E. coli illnesses resolve themselves without complications, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Five percent to 10 percent develop into a condition called hemolytic uremic syndrome, which can affect kidney function. While most patients recover, in the worst cases, like Ms. Smith’s, the toxin in E. coli O157:H7 penetrates the colon wall, damaging blood vessels and causing clots that can lead to seizures.

To control Ms. Smith’s seizures, doctors put her in a coma and flew her to the Mayo Clinic, where doctors worked to save her.

“They didn’t even think her brain would work because of the seizuring,” her mother said. “Thanksgiving Day, I was sitting there holding her hand when a group of doctors came in, and one looked at me and just walked away, with nothing good to say. And I said, ‘Oh my God, maybe this is my last Thanksgiving with her,’ and I stayed and prayed.”

Ms. Smith’s illness was linked to the hamburger only by chance. Her aunt still had some of the frozen patties, and state health officials found that they were contaminated with a powerful strain of E. coli that was genetically identical to the pathogen that had sickened other Minnesotans.

Dr. Kirk Smith, who runs the state’s food-borne illness outbreak group and is not related to Ms. Smith, was quick to finger the source. A 4-year-old had fallen ill three weeks earlier, followed by her year-old brother and two more children, state records show. Like Ms. Smith, the others had eaten Cargill patties bought at Sam’s Club, a division of Wal-Mart.

Moreover, the state officials discovered that the hamburgers were made on the same day, Aug. 16, 2007, shortly before noon. The time stamp on the Smiths’ box of patties was 11:58.

On Friday, Oct. 5, 2007, a Minnesota Health Department warning led local news broadcasts. “We didn’t want people grilling these things over the weekend,” Dr. Smith said. “I’m positive we prevented illnesses. People sent us dozens of cartons with patties left. It was pretty contaminated stuff.”

Eventually, health officials tied 11 cases of illness in Minnesota to the Cargill outbreak, and altogether, federal health officials estimate that the outbreak sickened 940 people. Four of the 11 Minnesota victims developed hemolytic uremic syndrome — an unusually high rate of serious complications.

In the wake of the outbreak, the U.S.D.A. reminded consumers on its Web site that hamburgers had to be cooked to 160 degrees to be sure any E. coli is killed and urged them to use a thermometer to check the temperature. This reinforced Sharon Smith’s concern that she had sickened her daughter by not cooking the hamburger thoroughly.

But the pathogen is so powerful that her illness could have started with just a few cells left on a counter. “In a warm kitchen, E. coli cells will double every 45 minutes,” said Dr. Mansour Samadpour, a microbiologist who runs IEH Laboratories in Seattle, one of the meat industry’s largest testing firms.

With help from his laboratories, The Times prepared three pounds of ground beef dosed with a strain of E. coli that is nonharmful but acts in many ways like O157:H7. Although the safety instructions on the package were followed, E. coli remained on the cutting board even after it was washed with soap. A towel picked up large amounts of bacteria from the meat.

Dr. James Marsden, a meat safety expert at Kansas State University and senior science adviser for the North American Meat Processors Association, said the Department of Agriculture needed to issue better guidance on avoiding cross-contamination, like urging people to use bleach to sterilize cutting boards. “Even if you are a scientist, much less a housewife with a child, it’s very difficult,” Dr. Marsden said.

Told of The Times’s test, Jerold R. Mande, the deputy under secretary for food safety at the U.S.D.A., said he planned to “look very carefully at the labels that we oversee.”

“They need to provide the right information to people,” Mr. Mande said, “in a way that is readable and actionable.”

Dead Ends

With Ms. Smith lying comatose in the hospital and others ill around the country, Cargill announced on Oct. 6, 2007, that it was recalling 844,812 pounds of patties. The mix of ingredients in the burgers made it almost impossible for either federal officials or Cargill to trace the contamination to a specific slaughterhouse. Yet after the outbreak, Cargill had new incentives to find out which supplier had sent the tainted meat.

Cargill got hit by multimillion-dollar claims from people who got sick.

Shawn K. Stevens, a lawyer in Milwaukee working for Cargill, began investigating. Sifting through state health department records from around the nation, Mr. Stevens found the case of a young girl in Hawaii stricken with the same E. coli found in the Cargill patties. But instead of a Cargill burger, she had eaten raw minced beef at a Japanese restaurant that Mr. Stevens said he traced through a distributor to Greater Omaha.

“Potentially, it could let Cargill shift all the responsibility,” Mr. Stevens said. In March, he sent his findings to William Marler, a lawyer in Seattle who specializes in food-borne disease cases and is handling the claims against Cargill.

“Most of the time, in these outbreaks, it’s not unusual when I point the finger at somebody, they try to point the finger at somebody else,” Mr. Marler said. But he said Mr. Stevens’s finding “doesn’t rise to the level of proof that I need” to sue Greater Omaha.

It is unclear whether Cargill presented the Hawaii findings to Greater Omaha, since neither company would comment on the matter. In December 2007, in a move that Greater Omaha said was unrelated to the outbreak, the slaughterhouse informed Cargill that it had taken 16 “corrective actions” to better protect consumers from E. coli “as we strive to live up to the performance standards required in the continuation of supplier relationship with Cargill.”

Those changes included better monitoring of the production line, more robust testing for E. coli, intensified plant sanitation and added employee training.

The U.S.D.A. efforts to find the ultimate source of the contamination went nowhere. Officials examined production records of Cargill’s three domestic suppliers, but they yielded no clues. The Agriculture Department contacted Uruguayan officials, who said they found nothing amiss in the slaughterhouse there.

In examining Cargill, investigators discovered that their own inspectors had lodged complaints about unsanitary conditions at the plant in the weeks before the outbreak, but that they had failed to set off any alarms within the department. Inspectors had found “large amounts of patties on the floor,” grinders that were gnarly with old bits of meat, and a worker who routinely dumped inedible meat on the floor close to a production line, records show.

Although none were likely to have caused the contamination, federal officials said the conditions could have exacerbated the spread of bacteria. Cargill vowed to correct the problems. Dr. Petersen, the federal food safety official, said the department was working to make sure violations are tracked so they can be used “in real time to take action.”

The U.S.D.A. found that Cargill had not followed its own safety program for controlling E. coli. For example, Cargill was supposed to obtain a certificate from each supplier showing that their tests had found no E. coli. But Cargill did not have a certificate for the Uruguayan trimmings used on the day it made the burgers that sickened Ms. Smith and others.

After four months of negotiations, Cargill agreed to increase its scrutiny of suppliers and their testing, including audits and periodic checks to determine the accuracy of their laboratories.

A recent industry test in which spiked samples of meat were sent to independent laboratories used by food companies found that some missed the E. coli in as many as 80 percent of the samples.

Cargill also said it would notify suppliers whenever it found E. coli in finished ground beef, so they could check their facilities. It also agreed to increase testing of finished ground beef, according to a U.S.D.A. official familiar with the company’s operations, but would not test incoming ingredients.

Looking to the Future

The spate of outbreaks in the last three years has increased pressure on the Agriculture Department and the industry.

James H. Hodges, executive vice president of the American Meat Institute, a trade association, said that while the outbreaks were disconcerting, they followed several years during which there were fewer incidents. “Are we perfect?” he said. “No. But what we have done is to show some continual improvement.”

Dr. Petersen, the U.S.D.A. official, said the department had adopted additional procedures, including enhanced testing at slaughterhouses implicated in outbreaks and better training for investigators.

“We are not standing still when it comes to E. coli,” Dr. Petersen said.

The department has held a series of meetings since the recent outbreaks, soliciting ideas from all quarters. Dr. Samadpour, the laboratory owner, has said that “we can make hamburger safe,” but that in addition to enhanced testing, it will take an aggressive use of measures like meat rinses and safety audits by qualified experts.

At these sessions, Felicia Nestor, a senior policy analyst with the consumer group Food and Water Watch, has urged the government to redouble its effort to track outbreaks back to slaughterhouses. “They are the source of the problem,” Ms. Nestor said.

For Ms. Smith, the road ahead is challenging. She is living at her mother’s home in Cold Spring, Minn. She spends a lot of her time in physical therapy, which is being paid for by Cargill in anticipation of a legal claim, according to Mr. Marler. Her kidneys are at high risk of failure. She is struggling to regain some basic life skills and deal with the anger that sometimes envelops her. Despite her determination, doctors say, she will most likely never walk again.

Gabe Johnson contributed reporting.