Month: June 2015

Hominins Used Stone Tools at Least 3.3 Million Years Ago

(p. A4) One morning in July 2011, while exploring arid badlands near the western shore of Lake Turkana in Kenya, a team of archaeologists took a wrong turn and made a big discovery about early human technology: Our hominin ancestors were making stone tools 3.3 million years ago, some 700,000 years earlier than previously thought.
The findings promise to extend knowledge of the first toolmakers even deeper in time, probably before the emergence of the genus Homo, once considered the first to gain an evolutionary edge through stone technology.
. . .
The stones showed that at least some ancient hominins — the group that includes humans and their extinct ancestors — had started intentionally knapping stones, breaking off pieces with quick, hard strikes from another stone to make sharp tools sooner than other findings suggested.
After further field research and laboratory analysis, the findings at the site known as Lomekwi 3 were described Wednesday in the journal Nature.
. . .
In a commentary in the journal, Erella Hovers, an archaeologist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, wrote that some form of toolmaking may have extended back to the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and hominins, as much as seven million years ago.
Dr. Hovers and other scientists not involved in the new research said that the dating of the material appeared solid and that the objects were deliberately produced tools, not scraps of rock broken by accident or natural causes.
“Because the sediments in these layers are fine-grained, and a flake found by the authors could be fitted back onto the core from which it had been detached,” Dr. Hovers said, “it is unlikely that the tools accumulated through stream activity or that substantial disturbance of the sediments occurred after the tools had been discarded.”

For the full story, see:
JOHN NOBLE WILFORD. “Stone Tools From Kenya Are Oldest Yet Discovered.” The New York Times (Thurs., May 21, 2015): A4.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the date of the online version of the story is MAY 20, 2015.)

The academic article summarized above, is:
Harmand, Sonia, Jason E. Lewis, Craig S. Feibel, Christopher J. Lepre, Sandrine Prat, Arnaud Lenoble, Xavier Boës, Rhonda L. Quinn, Michel Brenet, Adrian Arroyo, Nicholas Taylor, Sophie Clément, Guillaume Daver, Jean-Philip Brugal, Louise Leakey, Richard A. Mortlock, James D. Wright, Sammy Lokorodi, Christopher Kirwa, and Dennis V. Kent. “3.3-Million-Year-Old Stone Tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya.” Nature 521, no. 7552 (May 21, 2015): 310-15.

Sears Democratized the Washing Machine

(p. 301) The pieces of a new dream had finally been drawn in–big, diverse businesses that could combine as a sum greater than the proverbial parts. Now Sears could continue to “democratize” products that were previously too expensive or sophisticated for everyday people.
The automatic washing machine was an artifact owned only by the rich until Sears democratized the machine in 1942: $37.95–three bucks down and four more a month on time. The process was at the core of the entire industrial revolution-the humbling of products: buckles, buttons, and beer–and the efficient distribution of previously unattainable things to the huge pools of human desire called markets. Now the possibility stood before them of starting the cycle all over again.
Sears could spin a grand, gilded net for the people that included housing, mortgages, all manner of insurance, variations on banking sources, investment services, and, of course, consumer goods. People could get a house from Sears again. When the system was up and running, they could even get the money to buy the house; get the stuff that goes in the house; and the services that ensure the sustenance of the house if something unforeseen happens.

Source:
Katz, Donald R. The Big Store: Inside the Crisis and Revolution at Sears. New York: Viking Adult, 1987.

“The Most Astonishing Feat Mankind Has Ever Accomplished”

(p. 11) It’s been nearly half a century since David McCullough published “The Johns­town Flood,” which initiated his career as our matchless master of popular history. His 10th book, “The Wright Brothers,” has neither the heft of his earlier volumes nor, in its intense focus on a short period in its subjects’ lives, the grandness of vision that made those works as ambitious as they were compelling. Yet this is nonetheless unmistakably McCullough: a story of timeless importance, told with uncommon empathy and fluency.
. . .
David McCullough is interested in only one thing, namely how it was possible that two autodidacts from Ohio managed to satisfy a longing that the species had harbored for centuries. “The Wright Brothers” is merely this: a story, well told, about what might be the most astonishing feat mankind has ever accomplished. As the comic Louis C.K. has said, reprovingly, to those who complain about the inconveniences and insults of modern air travel: “You’re sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!”
Which is saying a lot. On its own terms, “The Wright Brothers” soars.

For the full review, see:
DANIEL OKRENT. “‘The Aviators.” The New York Times Book Review (Sun., MAY 10, 2015): 11.
(Note: ellipses internal to paragraph, in original; ellipsis between paragraphs, added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date MAY 4, 2015, and has the title “‘The Wright Brothers,’ by David McCullough.”)

The book under review, is:
McCullough, David. The Wright Brothers. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2015.

Merton Miller Applauded Bankers Who Cleverly Evaded Government Interference with Free Markets

(p. 12) . . . Merton Miller, a Nobel laureate economist at the University of Chicago, . . . was in many ways the father of financial innovation. Miller praised complex financial instruments, in large part because they helped institutions avoid the law. He applauded bankers for cleverly avoiding government attempts to interfere with markets.

For the full review, see:
FRANK PARTNOY. “Societal Bonds.” The New York Times Book Review (Sun., MAY 10, 2015): 28.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date MAY 8, 2015, and has the title “‘Smart Money,’ by Andrew Palmer.”)

Science Fiction Creates “False Sense of Conflict between Humans and Machines”

(p. R4) “I think the development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race,” astrophysicist Stephen Hawking told the BBC. Tesla founder Elon Musk called AI “our biggest existential threat.” Former Microsoft Chief Executive Bill Gates has voiced his agreement.
. . .
Taking part in the discussion [is] . . .; Guruduth S. Banavar, vice president of cognitive computing at IBM’s Thomas J. Watson Research Center; . . .
. . .
WSJ: Does AI pose a threat to humanity?
MR. BANAVAR: Fueled by science-fiction novels and movies, popular treatment of this topic far too often has created a false sense of conflict between humans and machines. “Intelligent machines” tend to be great at tasks that humans are not so good at, such as sifting through vast data. Conversely, machines are pretty bad at things that humans are excellent at, such as common-sense reasoning, asking brilliant questions and thinking out of the box. The combination of human and machine, which we consider the foundation of cognitive computing, is truly revolutionizing how we solve complex problems in every field.
. . .
(p. R5) WSJ: Some experts believe that AI is already taking jobs away from people. Do you agree?
. . .
MR. BANAVAR: From time immemorial, we have built tools to help us do things we can’t do. Each generation of tools has made us rethink the nature and types of jobs. Productivity goes up, professions are redefined, new professions are created and some professions become obsolete. Cognitive systems, which can enhance and scale the capabilities of our minds, have the potential to be even more transformative.
The key question will be how to build institutions to quickly train professionals to exploit cognitive systems as their assistants. Once learned, these skills will make every individual a better professional, and this will set a new bar for the nature of expertise.

For the full interview, see:
TED GREENWALD, interviewer. “Does Artificial Intelligence Pose a Threat?” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., May 11, 2015): R4-R5.
(Note: ellipses, and bracketed word, added; bold in original online version.)
(Note: the online version of the interview has the date May 10, 2015.)

“The General” at Sears Hated Bureaucracies that Restricted Individual Human Will

(p. 12) Though for fifty-four years he was known throughout the country as “the General,” Wood actually quit the Army in 1915 at the age of thirty-six. The son of a Civil War hero, he had graduated from West Point in the class of 1900 and had served for ten years as right-hand man to the famously hard-driving General George Goethals while they built the apparently unbuildable Panama Canal. After he left the service, Wood did agree to come back as acting Quartermaster General during World War I, but in truth he never much cared for the Army. It always seemed such a top-heavy thing, and so restrictive of human will.
The General hated bureaucracies. Aside from his desire to personally raise the standard of living of an entire nation, he dreamed of creating an institution that could accomplish large works without restricting the individuality of the people within it. He said he wanted to make an American corporation that had a soul.

Source:
Katz, Donald R. The Big Store: Inside the Crisis and Revolution at Sears. New York: Viking Adult, 1987.

Entrepreneur Elon Musk Is Determined and Works Intensely

(p. C7) “Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future” isn’t the first biography we’ve had of Mr. Musk, nor will it be the last. But it is easily the richest to date. It’s also the first one Mr. Musk has cooperated with, though he had no control, the author says, over its contents. Mr. Vance is a technology writer for Bloomberg Businessweek. He won over Mr. Musk, who initially declined to be interviewed, impressing him with his diligence after he had interviewed some 200 people.
The result is a book that is smart, light on its feet and possesses a crunchy thoroughness. Mr. Vance can occasionally veer toward hagiography and the diction of news releases. After noting that Mr. Musk’s grand vision is to colonize Mars, for example, Mr. Vance writes:
“He’s the possessed genius on the grandest quest anyone has ever concocted. He’s less a C.E.O. chasing riches than a general marshaling troops to secure victory. Where Mark Zuckerberg wants to help you share baby photos, Musk wants to … well … save the human race from self-imposed or accidental annihilation.”
. . .
The best thing Mr. Vance does in this book, though, is tell Mr. Musk’s story simply and well. It’s the story of an intelligent man, for sure. But more so it is the story of a determined one. Mr. Musk’s work ethic has always been intense. One observer says about him early on, “We all worked 20 hour days, and he worked 23 hours.”

For the full review, see:
DWIGHT GARNER. “Books of The Times; For Industrialist, Sky Is No Limit.” The New York Times (Weds., MAY 13, 2015): C1 & C7.
(Note: ellipses internal to paragraph, in original; ellipsis between paragraphs, added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date MAY 12, 2015, and has the title “Books of The Times; ‘Elon Musk,’ a Biography by Ashlee Vance, Paints a Driven Portrait.”)

The book under review, is:
Vance, Ashlee. Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future. New York: Ecco, 2015.

A Highly Mathematical Model Endorses Friedman’s View that Feds Directed Economics toward Highly Mathematical Models

(p. 1138) . . . , in many areas, the existing organization of research is characterized by large research institutions staffed with hundreds of
researchers and national funding agencies who set the research agenda for the field. Given the size of such institutions, if they decide to launch a new research program, then the critical mass of scholars can be reached with certainty, and individual researchers need not fear the coordination risk. Researchers should thus choose to work on that research topic, provided that they perceive an expected reward that is larger than s. (p. 1139) Unfortunately, if the large institution selects a poor idea (with a small or even negative θ), it would then be responsible for the emergence of a strand of research with modest scientific value. As an example, Diamond (1996) recalls Milton Friedman’s criticism of the U.S. National Science Foundation, which, in his opinion, has directed the economics profession toward a highly mathematical model.12
. . .
12. Ironically, his opinion is endorsed in this paper by a “highly mathematical model.”

Source:
Besancenot, Damien, and Radu Vranceanu. “Fear of Novelty: A Model of Scientific Discovery with Strategic Uncertainty.” Economic Inquiry 53, no. 2 (April 2015): 1132-39.
(Note: ellipses added; italics in original.)

The 1996 Diamond article mentioned above, is:
Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. “The Economics of Science.” Knowledge and Policy 9, nos. 2/3 (Summer/Fall 1996): 6-49.

Hamburger Grown in Lab from Cow Stem Cells

(p. D5) A hamburger made from cow muscle grown in a laboratory was fried, served and eaten in London on Monday in an odd demonstration of one view of the future of food.
. . .
The two-year project to make the one burger, plus extra tissue for testing, cost $325,000. On Monday it was revealed that Sergey Brin, one of the founders of Google, paid for the project. Dr. Post said Mr. Brin got involved because “he basically shares the same concerns about the sustainability of meat production and animal welfare.”
The meat was produced using stem cells — basic cells that can turn into tissue-specific cells — from cow shoulder muscle from a slaughterhouse. The cells were multiplied in a nutrient solution and put into small petri dishes, where they became muscle cells and formed tiny strips of muscle fiber. About 20,000 strips were used to make the five-ounce burger, which contained breadcrumbs, salt, and some natural colorings as well.

For the full story, see:
Fountain, Henry. “Frying up a Lab-Grown Hamburger.” The New York Times (Tues., Aug. 6, 2013): D5.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date Aug. 5, 2013, and has the title “A Lab-Grown Burger Gets a Taste Test.”)

Ed Telling’s Nimble, Intuitive Labor Decisions at Sears

(p. 49) Telling rarely gave a direct order, so the Searsmen near him knew they had to listen hard and learn to read his arcane signals. You had to understand his gnomic comments and apparent throwaway lines, for you would only hear what Telling thought about something twice. The requirement made people scared, because the third time he spoke you were gone. “No need to beat a horse if he’s not able to pull,” he’d say. “Let’s get another horse.”
He had a habit he said he couldn’t do anything about of judging the utility and character of a man the first time he looked into his eyes. Quick-draw decisions like this were a part of the general managerial ethos at Sears. The practice might have descended from the store master’s knack for spotting at fifteen paces a shopper in the mood to spend freely.

Source:
Katz, Donald R. The Big Store: Inside the Crisis and Revolution at Sears. New York: Viking Adult, 1987.