Bill Gates: How state budgets are breaking US schools

Well, this is about state budgets. This is probably the most boring topic of the whole morning. But I want to tell you, I think it's an important topic that we need to care about. State budgets are big, big money -- I'll show you the numbers -- and they get very little scrutiny. The understanding is very low. Many of the people involved have special interests or short-term interests that get them not thinking about what the implications of the trends are. And these budgets are the key for our future; they're the key for our kids. Most education funding -- whether it's K through 12, or the great universities or community colleges -- most of the money for those things is coming out of these state budgets.

But we have a problem. Here's the overall picture. U.S. economy is big -- 14.7 trillion. Now out of that pie, the government spends 36 percent. So this is combining the federal level, which is the largest, the state level and the local level. And it's really in this combined way that you get an overall sense of what's going on, because there's a lot of complex things like Medicaid and research money that flow across those boundaries. But we're spending 36 percent. Well what are we taking in? Simple business question. Answer is 26 percent. Now this leaves 10 percent deficit. Sort of a mind-blowing number. And some of that, in fact, is due to the fact that we've had an economic recession. Receipts go down, some spending programs go up, but most of it is not because of that. Most of it is because of ways that the liabilities are building up and the trends, and that creates a huge challenge. In fact, this is the forecast picture. There are various things in here, I could say we might raise more revenue, or medical innovation will make the spending even higher. It is an increasingly difficult picture, even assuming the economy does quite well -- probably better than it will do. This is what you see at this overall level.

Now how did we get here? How could you have a problem like this? After all, at least on paper, there's this notion that these state budgets are balanced. Only one state says they don't have to balance the budget. But what this means actually is that there's a pretense. There's no real, true balancing going on. And in a sense, the games they play to hide that actually obscure the topic so much that people don't see things that are actually pretty straight forward challenges. When Jerry Brown was elected, this was the challenge that was put to him. That is, through various gimmicks and things, a so-called balanced budget had led him to have 25 billion missing out of the 76 billion in proposed spending. Now he's put together some thoughts: About half of that he'll cut, another half, perhaps in a very complex set of steps, taxes will be approved. But even so, as you go out into those future years, various pension costs, health costs go up enough, and the revenue does not go up enough. So you get a big squeeze.

What were those things that allowed us to hide this? Well, some really nice little tricks. And these were somewhat noticed. The paper said, "It's not really balanced." "It's got holes." "It perpetuates deficit spending." "It's riddled with gimmicks." And really when you get down to it, the guys at Enron never would have done this. This is so blatant, so extreme. Is anyone paying attention to some of the things these guys do? They borrow money. They're not supposed to, but they figure out a way. They make you pay more in withholding just to help their cash flow out. They sell off the assets. They defer the payments. They sell off the revenues from tobacco. And California's not unique. In fact, there's about five states that are worse and only really four states that don't face this big challenge. So it's systemic across the entire country. It really comes from the fact that certain long-term obligations -- health care where innovation makes it more expensive, early retirement and pension where the age structure gets worse for you, and just generosity -- that these mis-accounting things allow to develop over time, that you've got a problem. This is the retiree health care benefits. Three million set aside, 62 billion dollar liability -- much worse than the car companies. And everybody looked at that and knew that that was headed toward a huge problem. The forecast for the medical piece alone is to go from 26 percent of the budget to 42 percent.

Well what's going to give? Well in order to accommodate that, you would have to cut education spending in half. It really is this young versus the old to some degree. If you don't change that revenue picture, if you don't solve what you're doing in health care, you're going to be deinvesting in the young. The great University of California university system, the great things that have gone on, won't happen. So far it's meant layoffs, increased class sizes. Within the education community there's this discussion of, "Should it just be the young teachers who get laid off, or the less good teachers who get laid off?" And there's a discussion: if you're going to increase class sizes, where do you do that? How much affect does that have? And unfortunately, as you get into that, people get confused and think, "Well maybe you think that's okay." In fact, no, education spending should not be cut. There's ways, if it's temporary, to minimize the impact, but it's a problem. It's also really a problem for where we need to go. Technology has a role to play. Well we need money to experiment with that, to get those tools in there. There's the idea of paying teachers for effectiveness, measuring them, giving them feedback, taking videos in the classroom. That's something I think is very, very important. Well you have to allocate dollars for that system and for that incentive pay. In a situation where you have growth, you put the new money into this -- or even if you're flat, you might shift money into it. But with the type of cuts we're talking about, it will be far, far harder to get these incentives for excellence, or to move over to use technology in the new way.

So what's going on? Where's the brain trust that's in error here. Well there really is no brain trust. (Laughter) It's sort of the voters, it's sort of us showing up. Just look at this spending. California will spend over 100 billion, Microsoft, 38, Google, about 19. The amount of IQ in good numeric analysis, both inside Google and Microsoft and outside, with analysts and people of various opinions -- should they have spent on that? No, they wasted their money on this. What about this thing? -- it really is quite phenomenal. Everybody has an opinion. There's great feedback. And the numbers are used to make decisions. If you go over the education spending and the health care spending -- particularly these long-term trends -- you don't have that type of involvement on a number that's more important in terms of equity, in terms of learning.

So what do we need to do? We need better tools. We can get some things out on the Internet. I'm going to use my website to put up some things that will give the basic picture. We need lots more. There's a few good books, one about school spending and where the money comes from -- how that's changed over time, and the challenge. We need better accounting. We need to take the fact that current employees, the future liabilities they create, that should come out of the current budget. We need to understand why they've done the pension accounting the way they have. It should be more like private accounting. It's the gold standard. And finally, we need to really reward politicians. Whenever they say there's these long term problems, we can't say, "Oh, you're the messenger with bad news? We just shot you." In fact, there are some like these: Erskine Bowles, Alan Simpson and others, who have gone through and given proposals for this overall federal health spending state-level problem. But in fact, their work was sort of pushed off. In fact, the week afterwards, some tax cuts were done that made the situation even worse than their assumptions. So we need these pieces.

Now I think this is a solvable problem. It's a great country with lots of people. But we have to draw those people in, because this is about education. And just look at what happened with the tuitions with the University of California and project that out for another three, four, five years. It's unaffordable. And that's the kind of thing -- the investment in the young -- that makes us great, allows us to contribute. It allows us to do the art, the biotechnology, the software and all those magic things. And so the bottom line is we need to care about state budgets because they're critical for our kids and our future.

Thank you.

(Applause)

Declaration of Insurance Independence (Part II): Unleash The Health IT Startups

Sebastian Seung: I am my connectome

We live in in a remarkable time, the age of genomics. Your genome is the entire sequence of your DNA. Your sequence and mine are slightly different. That's why we look different. I've got brown eyes. You might have blue or gray. But it's not just skin-deep. The headlines tell us that genes can give us scary diseases, maybe even shape our personality, or give us mental disorders. Our genes seem to have awesome power over our destinies. And yet, I would like to think that I am more than my genes. What do you guys think? Are you more than your genes? (Audience: Yes.) Yes? I think some people agree with me. I think we should make a statement. I think we should say it all together. All right: "I'm more than my genes" -- all together. Everybody: I am more than my genes. (Cheering) Sebastian Seung: What am I? (Laughter) I am my connectome. Now, since you guys are really great, maybe you can humor me and say this all together too. (Laughter) Right. All together now. Everybody: I am my connectome. SS: That sounded great. You know, you guys are so great, you don't even know what a connectome is, and you're willing to play along with me. I could just go home now.

Well, so far only one connectome is known, that of this tiny worm. Its modest nervous system consists of just 300 neurons. And in the 1970s and '80s, a team of scientists mapped all 7,000 connections between the neurons. In this diagram, every node is a neuron, and every line is a connection. This is the connectome of the worm C. elegans. Your connectome is far more complex than this, because your brain contains 100 billion neurons and 10,000 times as many connections. There's a diagram like this for your brain, but there's no way it would fit on this slide. Your connectome contains one million times more connections than your genome has letters. That's a lot of information.

What's in that information? We don't know for sure, but there are theories. Since the 19th century, neuroscientists have speculated that maybe your memories -- the information that makes you you -- maybe your memories are stored in the connections between your brain's neurons. And perhaps other aspects of your personal identity -- maybe your personality and your intellect -- maybe they're also encoded in the connections between your neurons. And so now you can see why I proposed this hypothesis: I am my connectome. I didn't ask you to chant it because it's true, I just want you to remember it. And in fact, we don't know if this hypothesis is correct, because we have never had technologies powerful enough to test it. Finding that worm connectome took over a dozen years of tedious labor. And to find the connectomes of brains more like our own, we need more sophisticated technologies, that are automated, that will speed up the process of finding connectomes. And in the next few minutes, I'll tell you about some of these technologies, which are currently under development in my lab and the labs of my collaborators.

Now you've probably seen pictures of neurons before. You can recognize them instantly by their fantastic shapes. They extend long and delicate branches, and in short, they look like trees. But this is just a single neuron. In order to find connectomes, we have to see all the neurons at the same time. So let's meet Bobby Kasthuri who works in the laboratory of Jeff Lichtman at Harvard University. Bobby is holding fantastically thin slices of a mouse brain. And we're zooming in by a factor of 100,000 times to obtain the resolution, so that we can see the branches of neurons all at the same time. Except, you still may not really recognize them, and that's because we have to work in three dimensions.

If we take many images of many slices of the brain and stack them up, we get a three-dimensional image. And still, you may not see the branches. So we start at the top, and we color in the cross-section of one branch in red, And we do that for the next slice and for the next slice. And we keep on doing that, slice after slice. If we continue through the entire stack, we can reconstruct the three-dimensional shape of a small fragment of a branch of a neuron. And we can do that for another neuron in green. And you can see that the green neuron touches the red neuron at two locations, and these are what are called synapses.

Let's zoom in on one synapse. And keep your eyes on the interior of the green neuron. You should see small circles. These are called vesicles. They contain a molecule know as a neurotransmitter. And so when the green neuron wants to communicate, it wants to send a message to the red neuron, it spits out neurotransmitter. At the synapse, the two neurons are said to be connected like two friends talking on the telephone.

So you see how to find a synapse. How can we find an entire connectome? Well, we take this three-dimensional stack of images and treat it as a gigantic three-dimensional coloring book. We color every neuron in in a different color, and then we look through all of the images, find the synapses and note the colors of the two neurons involved in each synapse. If we can do that throughout all the images, we could find a connectome.

Now, at this point, you've learned the basics of neurons and synapses. And so I think we're ready to tackle one of the most important questions in neuroscience: how are the brains of men and women different? (Laughter) According to this self-help book, guys brains are like waffles; they keep their lives compartmentalized in boxes. Girls brains are like spaghetti; everything in their life is connected to everything else. (Laughter) You guys are laughing, but, you know, this book changed my life. (Laughter) But seriously, what's wrong with this? You already know enough to tell me. What's wrong with this statement? It doesn't matter whether you're a guy or girl, everyone's brains are like spaghetti. Or maybe really, really fine capellini with branches. Just as one strand of spaghetti contacts many other strands on your plate, one neuron touches many other neurons through their entangled branches. One neuron can be connected to so many other neurons, because there can be synapses at these points of contact. By now, you might have sort of lost perspective on how large this cube of brain tissue actually is.

And so let's do a series of comparisons to show you. I assure you, this is very tiny. It's just six microns on a side. So, here's how it stacks up against an entire neuron. And you can tell that, really, only the smallest fragments of branches are contained inside this cube. And a neuron, well, that's smaller than brain. And that's just a mouse brain. It's a lot smaller than a human brain. So when show my friends this, sometimes they've told me, "You know, Sebastian, you should just give up. Neuroscience is hopeless." Because if you look at a brain with your naked eye, you don't really see how complex it is, but when you use a microscope, finally, the hidden complexity is revealed.

In the 17th century, the mathematician and philosopher, Blaise Pascal, wrote of his dread of the infinite, his feeling of insignificance at contemplating the vast reaches of outer space. And, as a scientist, I'm not supposed to talk about my feelings. Too much information, professor. (Laughter) But may I? (Laughter) (Applause) I feel curiosity, and I feel wonder, but at times I have also felt despair. Why did I choose to study this organ that is so awesome in its complexity that it might well be infinite? It's absurd. How could we even dare to think that we might ever understand this?

And yet, I persist in this quixotic endeavor. And indeed, these days I harbor new hopes. Some day, a fleet of microscopes will capture every neuron and every synapse in a vast database of images. And some day, artificially intelligent supercomputers will analyze the images without human assistance to summarize them in a connectome. I do not know, but I hope that I will live to see that day. Because finding an entire human connectome is one of the greatest technological challenges of all time. It will take the work of generations to succeed. At the present time, my collaborators and I, what we're aiming for is much more modest -- just to find partial connectomes of tiny chunks of mouse and human brain. But even that will be enough for the first tests of this hypothesis that I am my connectome. For now, let me try to convince you of the plausibility of this hypothesis, that it's actually worth taking seriously.

As you grow during childhood and age during adulthood, your personal identity changes slowly. Likewise, every connectome changes over time. What kinds of changes happen? Well, neurons, like trees, can grow new branches, and they can lose old ones. Synapses can be created, and they can be eliminated. And synapses can grow larger, and they can grow smaller. Second question: what causes these changes? Well, it's true. To some extent, they are programmed by your genes. But that's not the whole story, because there are signals, electrical signals, that travel along the branches of neurons and chemical signals that jump across from branch to branch. These signals are called neural activity. And there's a lot of evidence that neural activity is encoding our thoughts, feelings and perceptions, our mental experiences. And there's a lot of evidence that neural activity can cause your connections to change. And if you put those two facts together, it means that your experiences can change your connectome. And that's why every connectome is unique, even those of genetically identical twins. The connectome is where nature meets nurture. And it might true that just the mere act of thinking can change your connectome -- an idea that you may find empowering.

What's in this picture? A cool and refreshing stream of water, you say. What else is in this picture? Do not forget that groove in the Earth called the stream bed. Without it, the water would not know in which direction to flow. And with the stream, I would like to propose a metaphor for the relationship between neural activity and connectivity. Neural activity is constantly changing. It's like the water of the stream; it never sits still. The connections of the brain's neural network determines the pathways along which neural activity flows. And so the connectome is like bed of the stream. But the metaphor is richer than that. Because it's true that the stream bed guides the flow of the water, but over long timescales, the water also reshapes the bed of the stream. And as I told you just now, neural activity can change the connectome. And if you'll allow me to ascend to metaphorical heights, I will remind you that neural activity is the physical basis -- or so neuroscientists think -- of thoughts, feelings and perceptions. And so we might even speak of the stream of consciousness. Neural activity is its water, and the connectome is its bed.

So let's return from the heights of metaphor and return to science. Suppose our technologies for finding connectomes actually work. How will we go about testing the hypothesis "I am my connectome"? Well, I propose a direct test. Let us attempt to read out memories from connectomes. Consider the memory of long temporal sequences of movements, like a pianist playing a Beethoven sonata. According to a theory that dates back to the 19th century, such memories are stored as chains of synaptic connections inside your brain. Because, if the first neurons in the chain are activated, through their synapses they send messages to the second neurons, which are activated, and so on down the line, like a chain of falling dominoes. And this sequence of neural activation is hypothesized to be the neural basis of those sequence of movements.

So one way of trying to test the theory is to look for such chains inside connectomes. But it won't be easy, because they're not going to look like this. They're going to be scrambled up. So we'll have to use our computers to try to unscramble the chain. And if we can do that, the sequence of the neurons we recover from that unscrambling will be a prediction of the pattern of neural activity that is replayed in the brain during memory recall. And if that were successful, that would be the first example of reading a memory from a connectome.

(Laughter)

What a mess. Have you ever tried to wire up a system as complex as this? I hope not. But if you have, you know it's very easy to make a mistake. The branches of neurons are like the wires of the brain. Can anyone guess: what's the total length of wires in your brain? I'll give you a hint. It's a big number. (Laughter) I estimate, millions of miles. All packed in your skull. And if you appreciate that number, you can easily see there is huge potential for mis-wiring of the brain. And indeed, the popular press loves headlines like, "Anorexic brains are wired differently," or, "Autistic brains are wired differently." These are plausible claims, but in truth, we can't see the brain's wiring clearly enough to tell if these are really true. And so the technologies for seeing connectomes will allow us to finally read mis-wiring of the brain, to see mental disorders in connectomes.

Sometimes the best way to test a hypothesis is to consider its most extreme implication. Philosophers know this game very well. If you believe that I am my connectome, I think you must also accept the idea that death is the destruction of your connectome. I mention this because there are prophets today who claim that technology will fundamentally alter the human condition and perhaps even transform the human species. One of their most cherished dreams is to cheat death by that practice known as cryonics. If you pay 100,000 dollars, you can arrange to have your body frozen after death and stored in liquid nitrogen in one of these tanks in an Arizona warehouse, awaiting a future civilization that is advanced to resurrect you.

Should we ridicule the modern seekers of immortality, calling them fools? Or will they some day chuckle over our graves? I don't know. I prefer to test their beliefs, scientifically. I propose that we attempt to find a connectome of a frozen brain. We know that damage to the brain occurs after death and during freezing. The question is: has that damage erased the connectome? If it has, there is no way that any future civilization will be able to recover the memories of these frozen brains. Resurrection might succeed for the body, but not for the mind. On the other hand, if the connectome is still intact, we cannot ridicule the claims of cryonics so easily.

I've described a quest that begins in the world of the very small, and propels us to the world of the far future. Connectomes will mark a turning point in human history. As we evolved from our ape-like ancestors on the African savanna, what distinguished us was our larger brains. We have used our brains to fashion ever more amazing technologies. Eventually, these technologies will become so powerful that we will use them to know ourselves by deconstructing and reconstructing our own brains. I believe that this voyage of self-discovery is not just for scientists, but for all of us. And I'm grateful for the opportunity to share this voyage with you today.

Thank you.

(Applause)

Culture

Culture

View more presentations from Reed Hastings

Michael Sandel: The lost art of democratic debate

One thing the world needs, one thing this country desperately needs is a better way of conducting our political debates. We need to rediscover the lost art of democratic argument. (Applause) If you think about the arguments we have, most of the time it's shouting matches on cable television, ideological food fights on the floor of Congress. I have a suggestion. Look at all the arguments we have these days over health care, over bonuses and bailouts on Wall Street, over the gap between rich and poor, over affirmative action and same-sex marriage. Lying just beneath the surface of those arguments, with passions raging on all sides, are big questions of moral philosophy, big questions of justice. But we too rarely articulate and defend and argue about those big moral questions in our politics.

So what I would like to do today is have something of a discussion. First, let me take a famous philosopher who wrote about those questions of justice and morality, give you a very short lecture on Aristotle of ancient Athens, Aristotle's theory of justice, and then have a discussion here to see whether Aristotle's ideas actually inform the way we think and argue about questions today. So, are you ready for the lecture? According to Aristotle justice means giving people what they deserve. That's it; that's the lecture.

(Laughter)

Now, you may say, well, that's obvious enough. The real questions begin when it comes to arguing about who deserves what and why. Take the example of flutes. Suppose we're distributing flutes. Who should get the best ones? Let's see what people -- What would you say? Who should get the best flute? You can just call it out.

(Audience: Random.)

Michael Sandel: At random. You would do it by lottery. Or by the first person to rush into the hall to get them. Who else?

(Audience: The best flute players.)

MS: The best flute players. (Audience: The worst flute players.)

MS: The worst flute players. How many say the best flute players? Why? Actually, that was Aristotle's answer too.

(Laughter)

But here's a harder question. Why do you think, those of you who voted this way, that the best flutes should go to the best flute players?

Peter: The greatest benefit to all.

MS: The greatest benefit to all. We'll hear better music if the best flutes should go to the best flute players. That's Peter? (Audience: Peter.)

MS: All right. Well, it's a good reason. We'll all be better off if good music is played rather than terrible music. But Peter, Aristotle doesn't agree with you that that's the reason. That's all right. Aristotle had a different reason for saying the best flutes should go to the best flute players. He said, that's what flutes are for -- to be played well. He says that to reason about just distribution of a thing, we have to reason about, and sometimes argue about, the purpose of the thing, or the social activity, in this case, musical performance. And the point, the essential nature, of musical performance is to produce excellent music. It'll be a happy byproduct that we'll all benefit. But when we think about justice, Aristotle says, what we really need to think about is the essential nature of the activity in question and the qualities that are worth honoring and admiring and recognizing. One of the reasons that the best flute players should get the best flutes is that musical performance is not only to make the rest of us happy, but to honor and recognize the excellence of the best musicians.

Now, flutes may seem ... the distribution of flutes may seem a trivial case. Let's take a contemporary example of the dispute about justice. It had to do with golf. Casey Martin -- a few years ago, Casey Martin -- did any of you hear about him? He was a very good golfer, but he had a disability. he had a bad leg, a circulatory problem, that made it very painful for him to walk the course. In fact, it carried risk of injury. He asked the PGA, the Professional Golfers' Association, for permission to use a golf cart in the PGA tournaments. They said, "No. Now that would give you an unfair advantage." He sued, and his case went all the way to the Supreme Court, believe it or not, the case over the golf cart. Because the law says that the disabled must be accommodated, provided the accommodation does not change the essential nature of the activity. He says, "I'm a great golfer. I want to compete. But I need a golf cart to get from one hole to the next."

Suppose you were on the Supreme Court. Suppose you were deciding the justice of this case. How many here would say that Casey Martin does have a right to use a golf cart? And how many say, no, he doesn't? All right, let's take a poll, show of hands. How many would rule in favor of Casey Martin? And how many would not? How many would say he doesn't? All right, we have a good division of opinion here. Someone who would not grant Casey Martin the right to a golf cart, what would be your reason? Raise your hand, and we'll try to get you a microphone. What would be your reason?

(Audience: It'd be an unfair advantage.)

MS: It would be an unfair advantage if he gets to ride in a golf cart. All right, those of you, I imagine most of you who would not give him the golf cart worry about an unfair advantage. What about those of you who say he should be given a golf cart? How would you answer the objection? Yes, all right.

Audience: The cart's not part of the game.

MS: What's your name? (Audience: Charlie.)

MS: Charlie says -- We'll get Charlie a microphone in case someone wants to reply. Tell us, Charlie, why would you say he should be able to use a golf cart?

Charlie: The cart's not part of the game.

MS: But what about walking from hole to hole?

Charlie: It doesn't matter; it's not part of the game.

MS: Walking the course is not part of the game of golf?

Charlie: Not in my book, it isn't.

MS: All right. Stay there, Charlie.

(Laughter)

Who has an answer for Charlie? All right, who has an answer for Charlie? What would you say?

Audience: The endurance element is a very important part of the game, walking all those holes.

MS: Walking all those holes? That's part of the game of golf? (Audience: Absolutely.)

MS: What's your name? (Audience: Warren.)

MS: Warren. Charlie, what do you say to Warren?

Charley: I'll stick to my original thesis.

(Laughter)

MS: Warren, are you a golfer?

Warren: I am not a golfer.

Charley: And I am. (MS: Okay.) (Laughter)

(Applause)

You know, it's interesting. In the case, in the lower court, they brought in golfing greats to testify on this very issue. Is walking the course essential to the game? And they brought in Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer. And what do you suppose they all said? Yes. They agreed with Warren. They said, yes, walking the course is strenuous physical exercise. The fatigue factor is an important part of golf. And so it would change the fundamental nature of the game to give him the golf cart. Now, notice, something interesting -- Well, I should tell you about the Supreme Court first.

The Supreme Court decided. What do you suppose they said? They said yes, that Casey Martin must be provided a golf cart. Seven to two, they ruled. What was interesting about their ruling and about the discussion we've just had is that the discussion about the right, the justice, of the matter depended on figuring out what is the essential nature of golf. And the Supreme Court justices wrestled with that question. And Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, said he had read all about the history of golf, and the essential point of the game is to get very small ball from one place into a hole in as few strokes as possible, and that walking was not essential, but incidental.

Now, there were two dissenters, one of whom was Justice Scalia. He wouldn't have granted the cart, and he had a very interesting dissent. It's interesting because he rejected the Aristotelian premise underlying the majority's opinion. He said it's not possible to determine the essential nature of a game like golf. Here's how he put it. "To say that something is essential is ordinarily to say that it is necessary to the achievement of a certain object. But since it is the very nature of a game to have no object except amusement, (Laughter) that is, what distinguishes games from productive activity, (Laughter) it is quite impossible to say that any of a game's arbitrary rules is essential."

So there you have Justice Scalia taking on the Aristotelian premise of the majority's opinion. Justice Scalia's opinion is questionable for two reasons. First, no real sports fan would talk that way. (Laughter) If we had thought that the rules of the sports we care about are merely arbitrary, rather than designed to call forth the virtues and the excellences that we think are worthy of admiring, we wouldn't care about the outcome of the game. It's also objectionable on a second ground. On the face of it, it seemed to be -- this debate about the golf cart -- an argument about fairness, what's an unfair advantage. But if fairness were the only thing at stake, there would have been an easy and obvious solution. What would it be? (Audience: Let everyone use the cart.) Let everyone ride in a golf cart if they want to. Then the fairness objection goes away.

But letting everyone ride in a cart would have been, I suspect, more anathema to the golfing greats and to the PGA, even than making an exception for Casey Martin. Why? Because what was at stake in the dispute over the golf cart was not only the essential nature of golf, but, relatedly, the question, what abilities are worthy of honor and recognition as athletic talents? Let me put the point as delicately as possible: Golfers are a little sensitive about the athletic status of their game. (Laughter) After all, there's no running or jumping, and the ball stands still. (Laughter) So if golfing is the kind of game that can be played while riding around in a golf cart, it would be hard to confer on the golfing greats the status that we confer, the honor and recognition that goes to truly great athletes. That illustrates that with golf, as with flutes, it's hard to decide the question of what justice requires, without grappling with the question "What is the essential nature of the activity in question, and what qualities, what excellences connected with that activity, are worthy of honor and recognition?"

Let's take a final example that's prominent in contemporary political debate: same-sex marriage. There are those who favor state recognition only of traditional marriage between one man and one woman, and there are those who favor state recognition of same-sex marriage. How many here favor the first policy: the state should recognize traditional marriage only? And how many favor the second, same-sex marriage? Now, put it this way, what ways of thinking about justice and morality underlie the arguments we have over marriage? The opponents of same-sex marriage say that the purpose of marriage, fundamentally, is procreation, and that's what's worthy of honoring and recognizing and encouraging. And the defenders of same-sex marriage say no, procreation is not the only purpose of marriage. What about a lifelong, mutual, loving commitment? That's really what marriage is about. So with flutes, with golf carts, and even with a fiercely contested question like same-sex marriage, Aristotle has a point. Very hard to argue about justice without first arguing about the purpose of social institutions and about what qualities are worthy of honor and recognition.

So let's step back from these cases and see how they shed light on the way we might improve, elevate, the terms of political discourse in the United States, and for that matter, around the world. There is a tendency to think that if we engage too directly with moral questions in politics, that's a recipe for disagreement, and for that matter, a recipe for intolerance and coercion. So better to shy away from, to ignore, the moral and the religious convictions that people bring to civic life. It seems to me that our discussion reflects the opposite, that a better way to mutual respect is to engage directly with the moral convictions citizens bring to public life, rather than to require that people leave their deepest moral convictions outside politics before they enter. That, it seems to me, is a way to begin to restore the art of democratic argument.

Thank you very much.

(Applause)

Thank you.

(Applause)

Thank you.

(Applause)

Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you. Chris. Thanks, Chris.

Chris Anderson: From flutes to golf courses to same-sex marriage. That was a genius link. Now look, you're a pioneer of open education. Your lecture series was one of the first to do it big. What's your vision for the next phase of this?

MS: Well, I think that it is possible. In the classroom, we have arguments on some of the most fiercely held moral convictions that students have about big public questions. And I think we can do that in public life more generally. And so my real dream would be to take the public television series that we've created of the course -- it's available now, online, free for everyone anywhere in the world -- and to see whether we can partner with institutions, at universities in China, in India, in Africa, around the world, to try to promote civic education and also a richer kind of democratic debate.

CA: So you picture, at some point, live, in real time, you could have this kind of conversation, inviting questions, but with people from China and India joining in?

MS: Right. We did a little bit of it here with 1,500 people in Long Beach, and we do it in a classroom at Harvard with about 1,000 students. Wouldn't it be interesting to take this way of thinking and arguing, engaging seriously with big moral questions, exploring cultural differences and connect through a live video hookup, students in Beijing and Mumbai and in Cambridge, Massachusetts and create a global classroom. That's what I would love to do.

(Applause)

CA: So, I would imagine that there are a lot of people who would love to join you in that endeavor. Michael Sandel. Thank you so much. (MS: Thanks so much.)


這個世界所必要的一件東西 這國家所急需的 是一個更好的 論辯政治的方式 我們需要重新發現 早已失傳的民主論辯的技藝 （掌聲） 想想我們現今的主要辯論， 大多數時間，它們都是 有線電視頻道上的叫囂比賽 國會上演的意識形態 大胃王比賽 我有一個建議 看看近來 我們所有的這些 關於健保的辯論、 看看關於華爾街的獎金和緊急援助、 關於貧富差距、 看看關於防止種族與性別歧視的 積極行動和同性婚姻 在這些爭論之下 潛藏著 一種鼓噪的欲望湧向四方， 這些是 倫理哲學上的大問題 涉及正義的大問題 但我們卻很少 表達、維護、 與爭論 這些藏於我們政治生活中的倫理議題

所以，今天我要做的是 討論一些事 首先，讓我引述 一位著名哲學家的話 他曾寫過這些關於 正義與道德的問題， 我要談一段在舊時雅典 古老雅典時代的亞理斯多德 的正義論 接著會後討論 看看亞理斯多德的想法 是否在實際上， 告訴了我們 思考與辯論 今日問題的方法 所以，你們準備好這堂課了嗎？ 根據亞理斯多德 正義 意指 給予人們他們所應得的 意思就是，這堂課

（笑聲）

現在，你們也許會說，嗯，那是再明白不過的道理 真正的問題開始於 當人們爭論 誰應該得到什麽、以及爲什麽 以長笛為例 假設我們分配長笛 誰應得到那最好的呢? 讓我們看看有誰... 你認為呢？ 誰應該得到最好的？ 你可以直接說

（觀眾：隨機分配）

Michael Sandel：隨機選取，你們可以透過抽籤 或者先到先拿 哪一種？

（觀眾：最優秀的長笛吹奏者）

Michael Sandel：最優秀的長笛樂手（觀眾：最糟的長笛樂手）

Michael Sandel：最糟的長笛樂手 有多少人贊同 最優秀的長笛樂手 爲什麽？ 事實上，那也是亞理斯多德的答案

（笑聲）

但這裡有個更難的問題 爲什麽你們認為 你們這些贊成此法的人 最好的長笛 應該給予最優秀的長笛樂手呢？

Peter：這賦予所有人最大的利益

Michael Sandel：賦予所有人最大利益 我們得以聆聽好音樂 如果把最好的長笛 給予最優秀的長笛樂手 那是 Peter？（觀眾：Peter）

Michael Sandel：好的。 嗯，這是好理由 我們所有人都會過得比較好，假使他演奏好音樂的話 而不是難聽的音樂 但是，Peter 亞理斯多德並不同意 你所說的是合理的 沒關係 亞理斯多德有不同的理由 當他提到 最好的長笛應該給予最優秀的長笛樂手 他說 那是長笛存在的目的 就是要被拿來好好演奏 他說 推論一件事物 是否公平地分配 我們必須提出、 並且有時候要辯論 這東西的目的何在 或 這個社會活動的目的何在 在這個案例中，是音樂表演， 在這一點上，音樂表演的 主要本質 是爲了產生絕佳的音樂 它會營造一個歡樂的副產品 使我們所有人皆獲得益處 但，當我們思考正義時 亞理斯多德說 我們真正必須思考的問題是 這個活動的主要本質 以及那值得尊重、欣賞、 、與承認的品質 關於最好的長笛應該給予最優秀的長笛樂手 的其中一個理由是 音樂表演 並不只是爲了要使我們感到愉快而已， 它還得使那 最傑出的音樂家 獲得殊榮 並認可其傑出表現

現在，分配長笛似乎... 看起來是個平凡的例子 讓我們舉一個關於分配正義的 當代例子 這與高爾夫有關 幾年前，Casey Martin Casey Martin 有人聽過他嗎？ 他是一個非常好的高爾夫球手 但他是殘障人士 他的腳有問題，循環系統出了問題 這使得他在走路時 奇痛無比 事實上，這也有運動傷害的危險 他問 PGA 美國職業高爾夫球協會 是否可以在比賽中 使用高爾夫球車 他們說：「不， 那會讓你得到不公平的優勢。」 他一狀告上法院 他的案子一路上到 美國最高法院，你們相信嗎 這麼一件關於高爾夫球車的訴訟 因為法律上說 我們必須考慮到殘障人士 為他們提供妥善的輔助設施 提供妥善的殘障設施 並不會 改變比賽 或活動的本質 他說：「我是一位優秀的高爾夫球選手 我要參加比賽 但我需要一輛高爾夫球車 讓我可以從這一球洞到下一球洞。」

假使你們是 最高法院 假設你們要審議 這個涉及正義的案子 有多少人會認為 Casey Martin 有權使用高爾夫球車？ 另外，有多少人認為他沒有？ 好，讓我們做個調查，請舉手 有多少人站在 Casey Martin 這一方？ 那有多少人不支持他呢？ 很好，我們已有兩種不同的意見了 有人不給予 Casey Martin 使用高爾夫球車的權利 你們的理由是什麽？ 請舉手，我們會試著把麥克風遞給你 你的理由是什麽？

（觀眾：那會形成不公平的優勢）

Michael Sandel：那會形成不公平的優勢 假使他可以得到高爾夫球車 好的，在你們之中 我想多數不願給他高爾夫球車的人 大多擔心勝之不武 那麼，在你們當中，那些認為 應當給予他高爾夫球車的人怎麼說？ 你們會如何表達反對立場？ 是，好的

觀眾：車子並不構成比賽的一部份

Michael Sandel：你的名字是？（觀眾：Charlie）

Michael Sandel：Charlie 說 我們會給 Charlie 一隻麥克風，當有人想要回答時 告訴我們，Charlie 你爲什麽說他應該獲得一輛高爾夫球車？

Charlie：車子不是比賽的一部分

Michael Sandel：那從一洞走到另一洞又怎麼說呢？

Charlie：這與比賽無關，它不算比賽的一部份

Michael Sandel：在賽程中走路不算比賽的一部份？

Charlie：對我來說不是，它不是。

Michael Sandel：好，請留在那，Charlie

（笑聲）

誰想替 Charlie 回答？ 好，有誰想替 Charlie 回答的？ 你會怎麼說？

觀眾：耐力是比賽中一個非常重要的部分， 走完那些球洞

Michael Sandel：走過所有那些洞？ 那是高爾夫比賽的一部份？（觀眾：一點也不錯）

Michael Sandel：你的名字是？（觀眾：Warren）

Michael Sandel：Warren Charlie：你有什麽想跟 Warren 說？

Charlie：我堅持原來的論點

（笑聲）

Michael Sandel：Warren，你打高爾夫嗎？

Warren：我不打

Charlie：但我打。（Michael Sandel：好的。） （笑聲）

（掌聲）

你們知道 這很有趣 在這個案例中，在下級法院 他們把偉大的高爾夫選手帶進 這個特殊的案例中 步行在比賽中是必不可少的過程嗎？ 於是他們找來 Jack Nicklaus 和 Arnold Palmer 你們猜他們都怎麼說？ 是的，他們同意 Warren 的說法 他們說，是的，走完全程 是費力的運動 疲憊是高爾夫球賽中的重要一環 所以讓他使用高爾夫球車 會改變 比賽的根本性質 現在，請注意， 這裡有件有趣的事 嗯，我應該先告訴你有關最高法院的事

最高法院 作了裁決 你們認為他們怎麼說？ 他們說，是的， Casey Martin 必須獲得一輛高爾夫球車 七比二，他們裁決。 有趣的是，關於他們的這項判決 以及關於我們剛剛的討論， 那些有關 權利與正義等問題 都是建立於 我們對高爾夫球比賽 的必要本質的認識， 而最高法院 審慎思量了那問題 Stevens 法官，寫給多數人 說他遍讀了高爾夫球的歷史， 而這項比賽的必要之處 在於 把一個非常小的球，從一個地方 推到另一個洞裡 盡可能地使用最少的稈數 而走路並不是必要的，反而僅只是次要的

現在，有兩位持反對意見者 一位是 Scalia 法官 他不願賦予使用高爾夫球車的權利 他提出一個非常有趣的異議 有趣 是因為 他否決了大多數人所持的 亞理斯多德假設 他說 要決定一項賽事的本質，比如高爾夫球賽 是不可能的 以下是他的見解 「當談到某些事物是必要時 通常我們會說，它是在 爲了要達到某種目標時，是必要的。 但畢竟一項比賽的最終本質 除了達到娛樂目的之外，並沒有任何其他目標 （笑聲） 也就是說，把比賽 與生產活動區別開來 （笑聲） 我們不可能說 任何一種比賽的任意規則 是必要的。」

所以在這，你們有 Scalia 法官 採取亞理斯多德 的多數人意見的假設 根據兩個原因， 我們可以質疑 Scalia 法官的意見 第一，沒有哪個真正的球迷會那樣說話 （笑聲） 如果我們想到 我們所關心的比賽的規則 只不過是任意性的， 而非一種追求 道德與卓越的設計 一種值得我們尊敬的事物 我們根本不會關心這項比賽的結果 這也是第二個客觀的 的理由 面對它時 當面對這些高爾夫球車的辯論時 它看來似乎是一項關於公平的爭議 一項不平等的優勢 但，倘若公平性是唯一一項受到威脅的事物的話 解決辦法應該是再簡單明白不過 那是什麽？（觀眾：讓每個人都有車） 讓每個人都可乘坐高爾夫球車 如果他們要的話 這麼一來，就可以消除那些關於公平性的反對聲浪了

然而，讓每個人乘坐高爾夫球車 可能會，我懷疑， 可能會使美國高爾夫球公開賽 與那些球星 蒙受詛咒， 甚至如果為 Casey Martin 首開先例的話，其結果也有可能變得如此 爲什麽？ 因為，在這高爾夫球車的爭議中 所受到威脅的事物 並不只是高爾夫球的本質而已 它還涉及所謂運動員天賦的問題： 什麽樣的能力 是值得 運動員的才華 獲得崇敬與認可呢？ 我盡可能地試著 細緻地鋪陳論點： 高爾夫球選手們 多多少少 對於比賽的地位有些敏感。 （笑聲） 畢竟，這項比賽沒有跑步或跳躍， 而那顆球通常也靜止不動。 （笑聲） 所以，如果高爾夫球是那種 可以安坐於車上的比賽的話 這麼一來，人們就很難賦予 那些高爾夫球巨星 偉大崇高的地位了， 也很難給予偉大球星 榮耀與認可了。 這說明了 高爾夫球 如同長笛一般 是很難界定 其所需的正義， 當你們不解決如下問題時： 「什麽是這項活動的 內在本質、 以及 什麽樣的品質、 什麼樣的卓越內涵 關於這項活動 是值得尊敬與認可的？」

讓我們拿最後一個例子說明 當代著名的政治辯論： 同性婚姻 有些人認為，國家僅僅只能 承認傳統的婚姻 在男人與女人之間的婚姻； 另外，也有些人希望，國家能承認 同性婚姻 這裡有多少人 贊成第一項政策的： 國家只應承認傳統婚姻？ 另外，有多少人贊同同性婚姻？ 現在，這麼說好了， 在我們既有的 涉及到正義與道德的這些爭議下 關於婚姻， 我們有什麽樣的思考方式？ 反對同性婚姻的人說 婚姻的目的 基本上說來，是爲了生育， 而那是值得尊敬、 認可、與鼓勵的； 然而，捍衛同性婚姻的人說：不， 生育並不是婚姻的唯一目的， 那一個終身的、相互的、愛的承諾又如何呢？ 那的確與婚姻息息相關啊。 因此，長笛、高爾夫球車、 甚至如此激烈爭辯的議題 像同性婚姻 亞理斯多德提及了一個重點 倘若我們首先沒有探討 社會制度的目的、 與什麼樣的品質是值得 尊敬與認可的話， 要爭辯何謂正義是極為困難的。

因此，讓我們從這些案件回過頭來 看看它們如何向我們提供一種方式 使我們藉此得以會進步、提高 在美國的 政治論述的語彙 以及世界各地關於這方面的政治語言方式， 倘若我們在政治中 愈是直接地涉入倫理議題， 人們會傾向於認為 那是解決分歧的藥方， 從那方面說來，這也是一個 解決不寬容與強制脅迫的藥方。 因此，我們不如迴避、 略過 那些人們帶進公民生活中 的宗教與倫理衝突 在我看來，我們的討論 反映了相反的一面， 一個達成相互尊重 的更好方式是 直接地涉入 公民帶入公共生活中的 的倫理衝突 而不是要求 人們在進入政治以前， 把他們最深的倫理衝突 留在政治之外。 在我看來，那是一個 開始重建 民主辯論技藝的方法

謝謝大家

（掌聲）

謝謝

（掌聲）

謝謝

（掌聲）

非常感謝 謝謝，謝謝各位 Chris 謝謝，Chris

Chris Anderson：從長笛、高爾夫球場 到同性婚姻 實在是非常巧妙的連結 你的確是開放教育的先驅 你的系列課堂是開創者之一 你下一個階段的計劃是什麽？

Michael Sandel：嗯，我想這是可能的 在這個教室裡，我們有 學生們曾經討論過的 關於道德衝突的最激烈辯論 涉及了許多大型的公眾議題 我想我們可以更廣泛地 把它置入於公眾生活 所以，我真正的夢想是 創辦一個我們曾有過的課堂辯論 在電視節目之中 現在，透過網絡 這已經是可行的了 任何人在世界每個角落都可以進入 看看我們是否可以與一些機構合作 比如在中國、印度、 非洲、和世界各地的大學 試著提升 公民教育 與更豐富的 民主辯論

Chris Anderson：所以你在某種程度上，想像了 一個現場的、即時的 真實對談，徵求問題 但要求中國和印度的人們參與？

Michael Sandel：我們在這裡做了一點 在 Long Beach 那兒有 1500 人參與 另外，我們也在哈佛大學的講堂上 與 1000 位學生進行討論。 這不是很有趣嗎？ 以這種 思考與辯論的方式 深刻地討論宏大的倫理議題， 發掘文化差異 並且透過現場直播 使得在北京、孟買、 劍橋、麻薩諸塞州的學生 都能一起創造全球教室 那就是我想做的事。

（掌聲）

Chris Anderson：所以，我猜想 會有許多人願意加入你的努力的 Michael Sandel，非常謝謝你。(MS：謝謝各位。)

(第一堂)思考者的自白與答問2-1

台北藝術大學「思考者的自白與答問」第一堂／主講：姚仁祿。
本課程通過五個「思考主題」,每個「思考主題」討論課三週,總共十五堂個,並提供「觀察、思辨與練習」得實例與習題。
課程的目標是,讓大家能更貼近當今世界的困局與機會,學習「看得更真,想得更深」的能力。

No free iPod for students this year

Episode 2 - Gundam Seed: Episode 50 English Dubbed

Gundam Seed Destiny ep 2 Dubbed

Zel | Myspace Video






Watch Gundam Seed: Episode 50 English Dubbed episodes and free chapters. English Dubbed Episode guide, chapter Gundam Seed: Episode 50 To a Future that Never Ends.The Archangel, Eternal, and Kusanagi plunge into the battle, trying to keep both sides from using their weapons of mass destruction. Rau destroys Flay’s escape shuttle, killing everyone on board. Flay’s spirit visits the grief striken Kira to apologize and thank him. Kira destroys the Providence with the Freedom, while Athrun remote-destructs the Justice to destroy GENESIS. With both the PLANTs and the Earth Alliance forces in disarray, the renegade moderate faction of the PLANTs seize the opportunity to call for a cease-fire, effectively ending the war.

D9 Video: Leo Apotheker Full Session

Google’s Uphill Battle With Social, Animated

Why mobile users and developers should care about what Matt Murphy thinks

Either The Best or Worst Special FX Demo Reel of All Time

Chewsy

REaltor.com

Visited Vizio

visited Vizio (you already saw that visit in a previous post) to learn more about 3D, then visited Oakley to learn more about the latest in 3D glasses (hint: they are selling far better than they expected, I learned from execs there, which shows that 3D TV is indeed taking off, just not with the tech press). While there I got a good look at a new custom printing technology they built, which shows how custom products can be in the future.
If you were watching my wife’s Facebook feed you’d know that we got lots of beach time, along with time at LegoLand and Disneyland too. Great times and my brain is buzzing with new ideas to bring back to my work at Rackspace.

ゲゲゲの女房

Visited Dan Meis

He’s a world-famous architect who designs sports stadiums around the world. You’ll know his work if you see a baseball game in Seattle’s Safeco Field or a basketball game at Los Angeles’ Staples Center. I always am inspired by how big he thinks, which is why I started the conversation asking about something small he designed lately. Of course he switched the topic to discussing what he’s working on now: a soccer stadium for a future World Cup in Qatar.

TEDxBloomington -- Robert Scoble -- "The 2030 Class Is Arriving"

Robert Scoble co-authored Naked Conversations: How Blogs are Changing the Way Businesses Talk with Customers and is a well-known technology blogger/evangelist. He is best known for his blog, Scobleizer, which came to prominence during his tenure as a technical evangelist at Microsoft. He currently works for Rackspace where he is building a community called Building 43.

At TEDxBloomington, Scoble talks about how, today, we're about midway between his graduating class from the mid 1980s and that of babies being born today, that of 2030. Reviewing all the current technology that was unavailable during his education, he asks what the future will look like for these new babies, and suggests a series of ideas so we can help our children better prepare. He says "The future belongs to the geeks" and asks "Are we preparing our kids to be the geeks of the future?"


About TEDx In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TED has created a program called TEDx. TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. Our event is called TEDxBloomington, where x = independently organized TED event. At our TEDxBloomington event, TEDTalks video and live speakers will combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events, including ours, are self-organized.

Talkwheel: roundtable

One problem with many of the most popular social networking sites is that conversations are displayed linearly. This breaks up the discussion and can make it difficult to locate specific parts of a conversation. Talkwheel is changing this with its new user interface.

"Talkwheel is a real-time collaboration platform built around group discussion," explains Jeff Harris, Founder and CEO of Talkwheel. "We believe at Talkwheel that the core of collaboration is actually the discussion. All these companies out there are building a bunch of bells and whistles around the discussion model, but all have really neglected the actual discussion area. In the real world when we're with a group of people, we don't stand in a line and try to talk to each other. We sit around a roundtable and try to create this circular dynamic to get everyone involved...Talkwheel is really trying to keep this round table design and really capture the real world dynamic online."

In Talkwheel, each "wheel" has its own specific group, and you can filter the wheel by topic, time or users (coming soon). This eliminates the need to search through emails or scroll up and down forums to find the information that is most relevant to you. Groups can be private or public, and users can comment to the entire group or send individual, private messages to one other within the groups.

Talkwheel offers both a free social site as well as a version it hopes to sell to businesses. One feature set that has been particularly appealing to business users during beta testing is real-time analytics on all the information shared. "You can get sentiment analysis—what users like and what they don't like about different issues going on," says Harris, "so it's very helpful for HR. Companies are also using this to engage their customers on different focus groups, so you can get a really deep insight on what your employees and customers feel on different issues and topics."

Users can upload photos and videos to a discussion, and these items can be opened within the app, so users do not have to hop from page to page during a discussion. Talkwheel also plans to go mobile soon with apps for iPhone and Android devices.

"We wanted to make Talkwheel very, very viral," explains Harris, "so when you create a wheel, you can invite users who are registered or are unregistered. If I invited an unregistered user, all they have to do is click accept and it automatically registers them. They just type one password, and they're into Talkwheel.

Plizy

With so much video content online, navigating among all the options and choices can sometimes be overwhelming. Plizy recognizes this and is providing a solution that may change the way you watch and discover video on the Internet.

"We are a video discovery platform, so everything is cloud-based," explains Jonathan Benassaya, Founder and CEO of Plizy. "We have a cloud with a recommendation engine able to understand, from your video habits and your interests, [how] to create automatic channels tailored to what you do and what you like."

Plizy uses a variety of factors to learn what you like and recommends videos based on that information. "We have a patent pending recommendation engine," says Benassaya, "where we use three kinds of information. [We use] the social graph, obviously, but also we create your interest graph based on your Facebook and your Twitter account. So we try to understand if you like tech, if you like sports, if you like baseball, if you like Asia, etc...and above that, we use some algorithms. The most well known is collaborative filtering, which is the ability to recommend content based on your habits. It's a hybrid recommendation engine, so we don't use only your social graph."

The content that the service provides comes from a large and growing list of providers that Plizy hand picks—both public sites, such as YouTube and Vimeo, and sites that provide original content, such as Revision3.

"As of today, we have more than 300 channels that we've picked on the web," says Benassaya, "which are the best web content so far. You can enjoy TED, YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter, Facebook at the same place. And we are adding something new in the coming days, which is the ability to download some content, so you will be able to download TED videos [for example] and watch them on the plane or the bus or in a train. So we're trying to push the experience, the discovery, and the access to the best content."

The company is also working on technology that will allow you to push content to just about any device you would use to watch videos. Unlike when using AirPlay, you will be able to continue using your tablet for other things while streaming content. "[The system] is cloud-based," explains Benassaya, "and the cloud can control two screens. That's why you have an entire communication between two screens."

Plizy plans to roll out a wealth of new features over the coming months as it expands from its current iPad app to other devices. "We help people discover the right content," says Benassaya, "because they want to discover things, but they don't have time for that. Plizy is here for this."

Skype For Android Now Supports Video Calls, Works Over WiFi And 3G

This would go over big here in Vegas.

AutoWed Wedding Vending Machine by Concept Shed from Conceptshed on Vimeo.

Viral Video: “The Muppets” Are Back (and I, For One, Am Thrilled)

As with my deep adoration of Barry Manilow, I am a closet fan of “The Muppets.”
They’re back in a new movie and, apparently, it’s still not easy being green.

Rajesh Rao: A Rosetta Stone for the Indus script

I'd like to begin with a thought experiment. Imagine that it's 4,000 years into the future. Civilization as we know it has ceased to exist -- no books, no electronic devices, no Facebook or Twitter. All knowledge of the English language and the English alphabet has been lost. Now imagine archeologists digging through the rubble of one of our cities. What might they find? Well perhaps some rectangular pieces of plastic with strange symbols on them. Perhaps some circular pieces of metal. Maybe some cylindrical containers with some symbols on them. And perhaps one archeologist becomes an instant celebrity when she discovers -- buried in the hills somewhere in North America -- massive versions of these same symbols. Now let's ask ourselves, what could such artifacts say about us to people 4,000 years into the future?

Now this is no hypothetical question. In fact, this is exactly the kind of question we're faced with when we try to understand the Indus Valley civilization, which existed 4,000 years ago. Now the Indus civilization was roughly contemporaneous with the much better known Egyptian and the Mesopotamian civilizations, but it was actually much larger than either of these two civilizations. So it occupied the area of approximately one million square kilometers, covering what is now Pakistan, Northwestern India and parts of Afghanistan and Iran. Now given that it was such a vast civilization, you might expect to find really powerful rulers, kings, and huge monuments glorifying these powerful kings. In fact, what archeologists have found is none of that. They've found small objects such as these.

So here's an example of one of these objects. Well obviously this is a replica. But who is this person? A king? A god? A priest? Or perhaps an ordinary person like you or me? We don't know. But the Indus people also left behind artifacts with writing on them. Well no, not pieces of plastic, but stone seals, copper tablets, pottery and, surprisingly, one large sign board, which was found buried near the gate of a city. Now we don't know if it says Hollywood, or even Bollywood for that matter. In fact, we don't even know what any of these objects say. And that's because the Indus script is undeciphered. We don't know what any of these symbols mean.

Now the symbols are most commonly found on seals. So you see up there one such object. It's the square object with the unicorn-like animal on it. Now that's a magnificent piece of art. So how big do you think that is? Perhaps that big? Or maybe that big? Well let me show you. So here's a replica of one such seal. It's only about one inch by one inch in size -- pretty tiny. So what were these used for? We know that these were used for stamping clay tags that were attached to bundles of goods that were sent from one place to the other. So you know those packing slips you get on your FedEx boxes? So these were used to make those kinds of packing slips. Now you might wonder what these objects contain in terms of their text. So perhaps they're the name of the sender or some information about the goods that are being sent from one place to the other -- we don't know. We need to decipher the script to answer that question.

Now deciphering the script is not just an intellectual puzzle; it's actually become a question that's become deeply intertwined with the politics and the cultural history of South Asia. In fact, the script has become a battleground of sorts between three different groups of people. So first, there's a group of people who are very passionate in their belief that the Indus script does not represent a language at all. These people believe that the symbols are very similar to the kind of symbols you find on traffic signs or the emblems you find on shields. Now there's a second group of people who believe that the Indus script represents an Indo-European language. So if you look at a map of India today, you'll see that most of the languages spoken in North India belong to the Indo-European language family. So some people believe that the Indus script represents an ancient Indo-European language such as Sanskrit.

Now there's a last group of people who believe that the Indus people were the ancestors of people living in South India today. Now these people believe that the Indus script represents an ancient form of the Dravidian language family, which is the language family spoken in much of South India today. And the proponents of this theory point to that small pocket of Dravidian-speaking people in the North, actually near Afghanistan, and they say that perhaps, sometime in the past, Dravidian languages were spoken all over India and that this suggests that the Indus civilization is perhaps also Dravidian.

Now which of these hypotheses can be true? We don't know, but perhaps if you deciphered the script, you would be able to answer this question. But deciphering the script is a very challenging task. First, there's no Rosetta Stone. I don't mean the software; I mean an ancient artifact that contains in the same text both a known text and an unknown text. So we don't have such an artifact for the Indus script. And furthermore, we don't even know what language they spoke. And to make matters even worse, most of the text that we have are extremely short. So as I showed you, they're usually found on these seals that are very, very tiny.

And so given these formidable obstacles, one might wonder and worry whether one will ever be able to decipher the Indus script. So in the rest of my talk, I'd like to tell you about how I learned to stop worrying and love the challenge posed by the Indus script. Now I've always been fascinated by the Indus script ever since I read about it in a middle school textbook. And why was I fascinated? Well it's the last major undeciphered script in the ancient world. Now my career path led me to become a computational neuroscientist, so in my day job, I create computer models of the brain to try to understand how the brain makes predictions, how the brain makes decisions, how the brain learns and so on.

But in 2007, my path crossed again with the Indus script. That's when I was in India, and I had the wonderful opportunity to meet with some Indian scientists who were using computer models to try to analyze the script. And so it was then that I realized there was an opportunity for me to collaborate with these scientists, and so I jumped at that opportunity. And I'd like to describe some of the results that we have found. Or better yet, let's all collectively decipher. Are you ready?

The first thing that you need to do when you have an undeciphered script is try to figure out the direction of writing. So here are two texts that contain some symbols on them. So can you tell me if the direction of writing is right to left or left to right? I'll give you a couple of seconds. Okay. Right to left, how many? Okay. Okay. Left to right? Oh, it's almost 50/50. Okay. So the answer is: if you look at the left-hand side of the two texts, you'll notice that there's a cramping of signs, and it seems like 4,000 years ago, when the scribe was writing from right to left, they ran out of space. And so they had to cram the sign. One of the signs is also below the text on the top. And so this suggests the direction of writing was probably from right to left. And so that's one of the first things we know, that directionality is a very key aspect of linguistic scripts. And the Indus script now has this particular property.

What are the properties of language that would show? So languages contain patterns. So if I give you the letter Q and ask you to predict the next letter, what do you think that would be? Most of you said U, which is right. Now if I asked you to predict one more letter, what do you think that would be? Now there's several thoughts. There's E. It could be I. It could be A, but certainly not B, C or D, right? Now the Indus script also exhibits similar kinds of patterns. So there's a lot of texts that start with this diamond-shaped symbol. And this in turn tends to be followed by this quotation marks-like symbol. And this is very similar to a Q and U example. This symbol can in turn be followed by these fish-like symbols and some other signs, but never by these other signs at the bottom. And furthermore, there's some signs that really prefer the end of texts, such as this jar-shaped sign. And this sign, in fact, happens to be the most frequently occurring sign in the script.

Now given such patterns, here was our idea. So the idea was to use a computer to learn these patterns, and so we gave the computer the existing texts. And the computer learned a statistical model of which symbols tend to occur together and which symbols tend to follow each other. Now given the computer model, we can test the model by essentially quizzing it. So we could deliberately erase some symbols, and we can ask it to predict the missing symbols. So here are some examples. So you may regard this as perhaps the most ancient game of Wheel of Fortune.

So what we found was that the computer was successful in 75 percent of the cases in predicting the correct symbol. Now in the rest of the cases, typically the second best guess or third best guess was the right answer. Now there's also practical use for this particular procedure. There's a lot of these texts that are damaged. So here's an example of one such text. And we can use the computer model now to try to complete this text and make a best guess prediction. So here's an example of a symbol that was predicted. And this could be really useful as we try to decipher the script by generating more data that we can analyze.

Now here's one other thing you can do with the computer model. So imagine a monkey sitting at a keyboard. I think you might get a random jumble of letters that looks like this. Now such a random jumble of letters is said to have a very high entropy. This is a physics and information theory term. But just imagine it's a really random jumble of letters. Now how many of you have ever spilled coffee on a keyboard? You might have encountered the stuck keyboard problem -- so basically the same symbol being repeated over and over again. Now this kind of a sequence is said to have a very low entropy because there's no variation at all. Language, on the other hand, has an intermediate level of entropy; it's neither too rigid, nor is it too random. What about the Indus script? Here's a graph that plots the entropies of a whole bunch of sequences. So at the very top you find the uniformly random sequence, which is a random jumble of letters -- and interestingly, we also find the DNA sequence from the human genome and instrumental music. And both of these are very, very flexible, which is why you find them with a very high range. Now at the lower end of the scale, you find a rigid sequence, a sequence of all A's, and you also find a computer program, in this case in the language Fortran, which obeys really strict rules. Linguistic scripts occupy the middle range.

Now what about the Indus script? So we found that the Indus script actually falls within the range of the linguistic scripts. Now when this result was first published, it was highly controversial. There were people who were raising a human cry, and these people were the ones who believed that the Indus script does not represent language. I even started to get some hate mail. My students said that I should really seriously consider getting some protection. Now who'd have thought that deciphering could be a dangerous profession? Now what does this result really show? It shows that the Indus script shares an important property of language. So, as the old saying goes, if it looks like a linguistic script and it acts like a linguistic script, then perhaps we may have a linguistic script on our hands. So what other evidence is there that the script could actually encode language.

Well linguistic scripts can actually encode multiple languages. So for example, here's the same sentence written in English and the same sentence written in Dutch using the same letters of the alphabet. Now if you don't know Dutch and you only know English and I give you some words in Dutch, you'll tell me that these words contain some very unusual patterns. Some things are not right, and you'll say these words are probably not English words. Now the same thing happens in the case of the Indus script. So the computer found several texts -- two of them are shown here -- that have very unusual patterns. So for example the first text: there's a doubling of this jar-shaped sign. Now this sign is the most frequently-occurring sign in the Indus script, and it's only in this text that it occurs as a doubling pair.

So why is that the case? We went back and looked at where these particular texts were found, and it turns out that they were found very, very far away from the Indus Valley. They were found in present day Iraq and Iran. And why were they found there? But what I haven't told you is that the Indus people were very, very enterprising. They used to trade with people pretty far away from where they lived. And so in this case, they were traveling by sea all the way to Mesopotamia, present day Iraq. And what seems to have happened here is that the Indus traders, the merchants, were using this script to write a foreign language. It's just like our English and Dutch example. And that would explain why we have these strange patterns that are very different from the kinds of patterns you see in the text that are found within the Indus Valley. So this suggests that the same script, the Indus script, could be used to write different languages. The results we have so far seem to point to the conclusion that the Indus script probably does represent language.

So if it does represent language, then how do we read the symbols? That's our next big challenge. So you'll notice that many of the symbols look like pictures of humans, of insects, of fishes, of birds. So most ancient scripts use the rebus principle, which is, using pictures to represent words. So as an example, here's a word. Can you write it using pictures? I'll give you a couple seconds. Got it? Okay. Great. So here's my solution. So you could use the picture of a bee followed by a picture of a leaf -- and that's "belief," right. There could be other solutions. Now in the case of the Indus script, the problem is the reverse. So you have to figure out the sounds of each of these pictures such that the entire sequence makes sense. So this is just like a crossword puzzle, except that this is the mother of all crossword puzzles, because the stakes are so high if you solve it.

Now my colleagues, Iravatham Mahadevan and Asko Parpola have been making some headway on this particular problem. And I'd like to give you a quick example of Parpola's work. So here's a really short text. It contains seven vertical strokes followed by this fish-like sign. And I want to mention that these seals were used for stamping clay tags that were attached to bundles of goods, so it's quite likely that these tags, at least some of them, contain names of merchants. And it turns out that in India there's a long tradition of names being based on horoscopes and star constellations present at the time of birth. In Dravidian languages, the word for fish is "meen" which happens to sound just like the word for star. And so seven stars would stand for "elu meen" which is the Dravidian word for the Big Dipper star constellation. Now similarly, there's another sequence of six stars, and that translates to "aru meen" which is the old Dravidian name for the star constellation Pleiades. And finally, there's other combinations, such as this fish sign with something that looks like a roof on top of it. And that could be translated into "mey meen" which is the old Dravidian name for the planet Saturn. So that was pretty exciting. It looks like we're getting somewhere.

But does this prove that these seals contain Dravidian names based on planets and star constellations? Well not yet. So we have no way of validating these particular readings, but if more and more of these readings start making sense, and if longer and longer sequences appear to be correct, then we know that we are on the right track. So today, we can write a word such as TED in Egyptian hieroglyphics and in cuneiform script, because both of these were deciphered in the 19th century. The decipherment of these two scripts enabled these civilizations to speak to us again directly. Now the Mayans started speaking to us in the 20th century, but the Indus civilization remains silent.

So why should we care? The Indus civilization does not belong to just the South Indians or the North Indians or the Pakistanis; it belongs to all of us. So these are our ancestors -- yours and mine. They were silenced by an unfortunate accident of history. Now if we decipher the script, we would enable them to speak to us again. So what would they tell us? What would we find out about them? About us? I can't wait to find out.

Thank you.

(Applause)

Joshua Walters: On being just crazy enough

My name is Joshua Walters. I'm a performer.

(Beatboxing)

(Laughter)

(Applause)

But as far as being a performer, I'm also diagnosed bipolar. I reframe that as a positive, because the crazier I get onstage, the more entertaining I become. When I was 16 in San Francisco, I had my breakthrough manic episode in which I thought I was Jesus Christ. Maybe you thought that was scary, but actually there's no amount of drugs you can take that can get you as high as if you think you're Jesus Christ.

(Laughter)

I was sent to a place, a psych ward, and in the psych ward, everyone is doing their own one-man show. (Laughter) There's no audience like this to justify their rehearsal time. They're just practicing. One day they'll get here. Now when I got out, I was diagnosed and I was given medications by a psychiatrist. "Okay, Josh, why don't we give you some -- why don't we give you some Zyprexa. Okay? Mmhmm? At least that's what it says on my pen." (Laughter) Some of you are in the field, I can see. I can feel your noise. The first half of high school was the struggle of the manic episode, and the second half was the overmedications of these drugs, where I was sleeping through high school. The second half was just one big nap, pretty much, in class. When I got out I had a choice. I could either deny my mental illness or embrace my mental skillness.

(Bugle sound)

There's a movement going on right now to reframe mental illness as a positive -- at least the hypomanic edge part of it. Now if you don't know what hypomania is, it's like an engine that's out of control, maybe a Ferrari engine, with no breaks. Many of the speakers here, many of you in the audience, have that creative edge, if you know what I'm talking about. You're driven to do something that everyone has told you is impossible.

And there's a book -- John Gartner. John Gartner wrote this book called "The Hypomanic Edge" in which Christopher Columbus and Ted Turner and Steve Jobs and all these business minds have this edge to compete. A different book was written not too long ago in the mid-90s called "Touched With Fire" by Kay Redfield Jamison in which it was looked at in a creative sense in which Mozart and Beethoven and Van Gogh all have this manic depression that they were suffering with. Some of them committed suicide. So it wasn't all the good side of the illness.

Now recently, there's been development in this field. And there was an article written in the New York Times, September 2010, that stated: "Just Manic Enough." Just be manic enough in which investors who are looking for entrepreneurs that have this kind of spectrum -- you know what I'm talking about -- not maybe full bipolar, but they're in the bipolar spectrum -- where on one side, maybe you think you're Jesus, and on the other side maybe they just make you a lot of money. (Laughter) Your call. Your call. And everyone's somewhere in the middle. Everyone's somewhere in the middle.

So maybe, you know, there's no such thing as crazy, and being diagnosed with a mental illness doesn't mean you're crazy. But maybe it just means you're more sensitive to what most people can't see or feel. Maybe no one's really crazy. Everyone is just a little bit mad. How much depends on where you fall in the spectrum. How much depends on how lucky you are.

Thank you.

(Applause)

Irregular verbs

Irregular verbs

View more documents from littleteacher

Twitter CEO Dick Costolo Is Ready for His Close-Up: The Full D9 Interview

Twitter CEO Dick Costolo is well-known in Silicon Valley as a funny guy, but he trotted out some serious stats in this onstage interview with Walt Mossberg at the recent ninth D: All Things Digital conference.
Among the many topics: Acquisition interest by Google and others; its new photo sharing service; the evolving business plan of Twitter; and how Costolo does not have a super-secret Mach 20 government plane to impress the crowd, even if the microblogging service is growing fast.
Still, as you will see, Costolo is pretty quick.

Solar Sinter solar-powered 3D printer turns sand into glass, renews our faith in higher education (video)

Solar Sinter solar-powered 3D printer turns sand into glass, renews our faith in higher education (video)Solar Sinter solar-powered 3D printer turns sand into glass, renews our faith in higher education (video)

Markus Kayser - Solar Sinter Project from Markus Kayser on Vimeo.

Pi music

Bre.ad shortens URLs while letting you extend your brand

Pelican Imaging's prototype array camera could make your pictures better, phones thinner

Pelican Imaging's prototype array camera could make your pictures better, phones thinner (video)
By Tim Stevens posted Feb 10th 2011 11:05AM

If you want to look for life on another planet you don't build one radio telescope that's miles wide, you build a bunch of smaller ones and create an array out of them. As it turns out that basic idea works for capturing visible wavelengths as well. It's called a plenoptic camera, using an array of very small lenses that, when combined, can create an image as good as a larger one. Pelican Imaging is largely interested in the slim factor this kind of system could offer, potentially allowing for thinner phones, but this could also open the door to some interesting effects. Check out the video after the break for an example of the dynamic aperture control this sort of setup can allow, where you can change the focal plane of an image after it was taken. Given the small size of the array here you probably couldn't do anything too crazy, like take a picture through a tree, but the days of poorly focused cameraphone shots might finally be at an end -- whenever this actually comes to market.

Where is the Gold in Fort Knox?

Did you know that no member of Congress has been allowed to look at the gold in Fort Knox for over 40 years?

Fotopedia Heritage

7 Swype tips for better swyping

Video – Conformity

Inkling Turns Your iPad Into a Textbook: The D9 Demo

Social Media Revolution 3 (4:15 version via Erik Qualman)

Toronto G-20 - The Shape of Things To Come

TRNN Replay: Are extraordinary police powers and cuts to social safety net the G-20 plan for the future?

Thousands of G-20 Detentions Illegal: Ontario Ombudsman

asks Ombudsman Andre Marin who is responsible and who has been held accountable for "the most massive compromise of civil liberties in Canadian history"

Here’s the Startup Sauna videos: