Dear Editor,

While I was not particularly interested in learning all the details of how a firing squad works, I most certainly did appreciate the young mans letter in last weeks paper supporting the death penalty for willful murder and other base crimes.

Various religious leaders may pontificate that all life is sacred. And sociologists, psychologists, and the supposed wise men of the world think that their studies, investigations, and theories of human behavior can negate the need or justification for the death penalty. But these are all conclusions derived merely by human reasoning which, apart from the guidance of Gods written Word, is inevitably perverted by our corrupted and sinful natures to excuse sin and tolerate injustice. It is simply not right to bury the dead, but allow his or her killer to live.

The notion that all life is sacred may sound very pious and holy, but it is an idea that is simply not found in the Scriptures. All innocent life is sacred, yes! But criminal, degenerate life is not. When someone has so little respect for the life of his fellow human beings that he kills them, he has forfeited any right he had to his own life and society has every right and duty to take it from him.

The Bible says plainly: Whoever sheds mans blood, his blood will be shed by man, for God made man in the image of God. (Gen. 9:6) In applying this verse, one Bible commentator has written: How carefully God protects the rights of men! He has attached a penalty to willful murder. If one murderer were permitted to go unpunished, he would by his evil influence and cruel violence subvert others. God must punish murderers. He gives life, and He will take life if that life becomes a terror and a menace. (SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 7-A, p. 1091) And the principle that human governments have the right to use capital punishment to maintain order in society and to execute justice on behalf of the victim is substantiated by countless examples in sacred history. Ceasar (human government) does not bear the sword in vain. (See Romans 13:4)

In all the moral issues of life, the word of our infinite Creator God must stand sovereign and supreme. Our only duty as His sinful, erring, and fallible creatures is to submit unquestioning to His infallible judgments, decisions, and requirements.

Leonard Lang

See the original post:
Right to life forfeited by those who commit murder - News Letter Journal

In BriefDeepMind is collaborating with humans so that its AI can learnusing human feedback instead of collecting rewards as it exploresits environment. This work will help AI systems perform moreeffectively and safely, and do what we want them to do. Humans Teaching Robots Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to advance humanity and civilization than any technology that came before it. However, AI carries risks, and heavy responsibilities, with it. DeepMind, owned by Alphabet (Googles parent company), and OpenAI, a non-profit AI research company, are working to alleviate some of these concerns. They are collaborating with people (who dont necessarily have any special technical skills themselves) touse human feedback to teach AI. Not only because this feedback helps AIlearn more effectively, but also because the method providesimproved technical safety and control.

Not only because this feedback helps AIlearn more effectively, but also because the method providesimproved technical safety and control.

Among the first collaboration conclusions: AI learns by trial and error, and doesnt need humans to give it an end goal. This is good, because we already know that setting a goal thats even a little off can have disastrous results. In practice, the system used feedback to learn how to make a simulated robot do backflips.

The system is unusual because it learns by training the reward predictor, an agent from a neural network, instead of collecting rewards as it explores an environment. A reinforcement learning agent still explores the environment, but the difference is that clips of its behavior are then sent to a human periodically. That human then chooses the better behavior based on whatever the ultimate goal is. Its those human selectionsthat train the reward predictor, who in turn trains the learning agent. Finally, thelearning agent eventually learns how to improve its behavior enough to maximize its rewards which it can only do by pleasing the human.

This approach allows humans to detect and correct any behaviors that are undesirable, which ensures safety without being too burdensome for human stewards. Thats a good thing, because they need toreview about 0.1% of the agents behavior to teach it. That may not seem like much at first, butthat could well mean thousands of clips to review something the researchers are working on.

Human feedback can also help AI achieve superhuman results at least in some video games. Researchers are now parsing out why the human feedback system achieves wildly successful results with some tasks, average or even ineffective results with others.For example, no amount of human feedback could help the system master Breakout or Qbert. They are also working to fix the problem of reward hacking, in which early discontinuation of human feedback causes the system to game its reward function for bad results.

Understanding these problems is essential to building AI systems that behave as we intend them to safely and effectively. Other future goals may include reducing the amount of human feedback required, or changing the way its provided; perhaps eventually facilitatingface to face exchanges that offer the AI more opportunities to learn from actual human behavior.

Editors Note: This article has been updated to note the contributions made by OpenAI.

See the original post:
DeepMind Asks: How Much Can Humans Teach AI? - Futurism

One of the most famous stories in the Bible occurs in Genesis, in a passage commonly known as Noahs Ark. In it, God, enraged over human behavior, decides to wipe out everything, in an extinction-by-flood event. Somehow, in the midst of the deitys hairy-eyed examination of all things wicked, Noah gets the Lords attention, and is requisitioned to build a vessel capable of safeguarding his family and propagating samples of each species. And, so on and so forth, until a rainbow appears to signal that this is one-time cleansing.

The story has deep layers, profoundly embedded in the psyches of most of the worlds population, if not as conveyed by Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, by other spiritual traditions that tell a similar tale. The accounts hold on the collective consciousness is no less powerful whether its factually true or an ancient version of fake news. The essential elements are whats important: humans willfully engage in destructive behavior, are thus destroyed, except a handful of righteous and morally untethered creatures, who plant the seeds for a new day. The rainbow is a kind of cherry on top, a sentimental teardrop from a God who isnt that bad after all.

Noahs Ark, the story and/or historical incident, is in the air these days. Weve created the conditions for catastrophic floods and mass species die-offs. Parts of the earth Niger; Sudan are becoming uninhabitable as a result of increasingly severe climate conditions, triggering mass migrates searching for a safe harbor. Meanwhile, Elon a name referring to oak trees in Hebrew; the Ark was made of wood! and other meritorious individuals are building space vessels to evacuate the planet when the time comes.

A thought stroll through the story further illuminates our current condition. While theres no indication that God issued a broad warning about the impending disaster, or that Noah conveyed the message to his neighbors, the Lords actions suggest that people were generally aware that their wicked ways could trigger harsh consequences, or at least a substantial time out. That is, the Deity was angry that creation was willfully doing things they knew to be wrong. These werent just folks ignorantly playing the fool, which might merit a sharp warning, like a localized flash flood, not the total destruction of the world. Past chronicles Adam and Eve and the like forewarned of paradise lost when God gets irritated.

What, exactly, constituted bad behavior was probably fiercely contested. One faction no doubt voraciously argued that it was the fault of the Gays, the abortionists, those creeping across boundaries without permission. Another group pointed to enslaving people, imposition of the death penalty, and bearing false witness. A third denounced those who worshiped the wrong, or too many, gods. And so on and so forth, until everyone stuck their fingers in their ears to block out the noise of those with whom they disagreed, and got back to whatever they were doing, evil or good.

Lets say an authority figure beyond reproach the council of elders; the chief water engineer intervened and stated, unequivocally, that the evil over which God was angry was something pretty much everybody did, like cooking food on open-flamed wood-fueled pits, and unless everyone stopped doing that it was curtains for sure. The announcement would unleash a flurry of fire-putting-out, a scramble for substitutes, and angry muttering that, first they take away our pointy sticks, now this? When the smoke settled, wealthy people would be sitting pretty with their souped-up, new, cookers, fueled by renewable whale blubber; the working class would be forced by decree to construct enclosed fireplaces with specialized exhaust screens, forgoing school fees to pay for the expense; and the poor would be left to eat raw millet, clandestinely cooking the same way they ever did, having no alternative, and, when caught, being ruinously fined for their troubles.

Under pressure, thered be a political backlash. The council of elders would be replaced, with younger people who have fuller lips; the chief engineer dismissed. While many would avoid returning to their wicked ways, fearing the consequences, others would dive back in, glancing at their neighbors to make sure they were doing the same. Some would even embrace the evil, yearning for Gods touch, however violent it might be.

And then, ba-bam, everyone is drowned.

The rainbow is akin to an abuser handing out a lollypop, his extended hand soaked in the blood of all those just slaughtered, the survivors just happy to be alive, so sweat-stained with relief that theyre ready to forgive and forget whatever nastiness may have occurred. While God announces that theyll be no future holocausts, there actually are many, with more to come. Perhaps the Lord found a loophole in the purported statement that never again will all creatures be eliminated. Hey, upwards of eight million Jews isnt all, nor is a few hundred thousand Syrians, and, anyways those are not my doing. Nothing to see, move along.

Its hard not to think that we humans have pushed the repeat button on this story. The details are different, sure, but the theme seems eerily familiar, even comforting. In Noahs Ark, the original, few of us identify with the wicked; were Noah, or his family, or perhaps one of the innocent creatures taken on board the vessel to the future. We, as defined by me, are not the drowned. We are the saved. Looking forward to our colorful sucker.

Read the rest here:
Noah's Ark - The Potrero View

Marcus, a leading scholar in health behavior changes and the first senior associate dean for public health at University of California San Diego School of Medicine, will succeed the schools inaugural dean, Terrie Fox Wetle, who steps down Sept. 1.

PROVIDENCE A top public health official at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine has been named the next dean of the Brown University School of Public Health.

Bess Marcus, a leading scholar in health behavior changes and the first senior associate dean for public health at UCSD, will succeed the schools inaugural dean, Terrie Fox Wetle, who is stepping down Sept. 1.

Marcus will assume the post Nov. 1.

A clinical health psychologist and expert in health promotion, Marcus served as a professor of community health and psychiatry and human behavior at Brown before leaving for UCSD in 2011, the university said in a news release.

Marcus was chair of the Department of Family Medicine and Public Health at the UCSD School of Medicine for six years and the schools senior associate dean for public health where she founded and directed the UCSD Institute for Public Health for three years.

Brown University President Christina Paxson announced her appointment in a June 14 email to the Brown community.

Marcus first arrived at Brown as a postdoctoral scholar in 1988 after earning her masters degree and Ph.D. in clinical psychology at Auburn University. After five years as an assistant professor, she became an associate professor of psychiatry and human behavior in 1995 and then a full professor in 2000. In 2004, she became director of the Centers for Behavioral and Preventive Medicine at Miriam Hospital, an affiliated hospital partner for Brown.

In 2007, Marcus joined the faculty of Browns Department of Community Health and remained on the faculty when the department became the School of Public Health in 2013.

larditi@providencejournal.com

(401) 277-7335

On Twitter: @LynnArditi

Link:
Bess Marcus to head Brown University's School of Public Health - The Providence Journal

SAN FRANCISCO Uber grew into a huge company by operating as if there were no stop signs.

The ride-hailing service relied on corporate mantras that were used to justify "poor behavior," such as "Let Builders Build" and "Always Be Hustlin'," according to a report on the company's internal practices by attorney general Eric Holder.

Its board is cracking down, its founder and CEO is stepping away indefinitely, and the company itself is coming to grips with measures intended to reform its toxic culture and aggressive business practices.

And it all started when Susan Fowler, a former Uber engineer, posted a personal essay in February that detailed the company's toleration of sexual harassment and discrimination. Had she not come forward in such a public manner, it's possible none of this would have happened.

"What she did took real courage," said Elizabeth Ames, a senior vice president at the Anita Borg Institute, a nonprofit founded to advance women in the technology business. "There are many women in companies and technical worlds (who) step up and talk about this problem. And often they are the ones that get tagged as being the problem."

Following Fowler's post, Uber hired former Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate her charges. His law firm's subsequent recommendations, released Tuesday, aim to fix Uber's dysfunctional management, which allowed the male-dominated ride-hailing company to grow huge without even the most basic procedures to prevent sexual harassment, bullying and other bad behavior.

Also on Tuesday, Uber founder and CEO Travis Kalanick accepted responsibility for the company's state and told employees that he'd be taking an indefinite leave of absence. The company declined to say if Kalanick's decision was related to the report.

Play Video

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has announced he's taking some time off, following the death of his mother two weeks ago. This comes as the company is b...

But Kalanick wasn't the only Uber official sucked into the vortex unleashed by Fowler's essay. On Monday, the company announced that Emil Michael, vice president for business and a close Kalanick ally, was also leaving. Then Uber board member and hedge fund partner David Bonderman resigned Tuesday night after making what he called an inappropriate remark about women at a company meeting.

The 13-page document from Holder's firm Covington & Burling LLP did not outline the investigation's findings about Uber. But its recommendations implicitly expose a startup-turned-goliath that permitted misconduct, had few policies to protect employees and ran with little board supervision.

The recommendations, adopted unanimously by Uber's board, show clearly that the company's next incarnation dubbed Uber 2.0 by Kalanick will have to be radically different from version 1.0, which flouted regulations, actively misled public investigators , and disrupted the taxi business to become the world's largest ride-hailing company.

In her essay, Fowler wrote that she was propositioned by her manager on her first day with an engineering team. She reported him to human resources, but was told he would get a lecture and no further punishment because he was a "high performer," she wrote.

Fowler did not respond to emailed requests for comment. But on Twitter , she called Tuesday's moves "all optics" and wrote that she has gotten nothing but "aggressive hostility" from the company.

After interviewing 200 witnesses, Holder had to make such basic recommendations as setting clear policies to protect workers from harassment, and that the human resources department get a better handle on keeping records and tracking employee complaints.

The recommendations "definitely paint a picture of a company that was out of control and pretty chaotic," said Ames, the Borg Institute executive.

Play Video

Uber's Chief Business Officer Emil Michael resigned after a series of bullying and sexual harassment allegations against the ride-hailing company...

Holder also suggested that Uber change its written cultural values to promote positive behavior, inclusion and collaboration. That means doing away with values that justified poor behavior, such as "Let Builders Build," ''Always Be Hustlin'," ''Meritocracy and Toe-Stepping" and "Principled Confrontation."

Holder also called for trimming Kalanick's job duties, shifting day-to-day functions to a yet-to-be-hired chief operating officer. During Kalanick's leave, his leadership team will run the troubled company.

Kalanick wrote that he needs time off to grieve for his mother, who died in a May boating accident. He also said he's responsible for the company's situation and needs to become a better leader.

Uber's board said it would review Kalanick's responsibilities and reassign some to others.

Ames said the recommendations were strong but indicated Uber had few policies, and the ones it had were not followed.

The board unanimously approved the recommendations on Sunday, including a suggestion that a senior executive be tasked with making sure they are implemented. Apparently because of distrust of some leaders, Holder recommended that care be taken to make sure the executive "is viewed positively by the employees."

The company released only Holder's recommendations, not his full report, citing the need to protect employees who complained.

Liane Hornsey, Uber's chief human resources officer who started in January, said implementing the recommendations "will improve our culture, promote fairness and accountability, and establish processes and systems to ensure the mistakes of the past will not be repeated."

Holder also recommended adding independent directors and replacing the board chairman, co-founder Garrett Camp, with an independent person. The board currently has eight voting members, three from within the company.

Uber was also advised to make sure its workforce is more diverse. The company's diversity figures are similar to the rest of Silicon Valley, with low numbers for women and underrepresented minorities. In the U.S., less than a third of the company's workers are female.

In addition, the report says that diversity and inclusiveness should be a key value for Uber that's included in management training.

After Fowler posted her essay, Uber Technologies Inc. made changes in human resources and opened a 24-hour hotline for employees. Last week, the company fired 20 people, including some managers, at the recommendation of Perkins Coie, which separately investigated 215 employee complaints.

Under Kalanick, Uber has disrupted the taxi industry in hundreds of cities and turned the San Francisco-based company into the world's most valuable startup. As of late last year, Uber's private-market valuation had climbed to nearly $70 billion.

Besides the sexual harassment complaints, in recent months Uber has been threatened by boycotts, sued and subject to a federal investigation over its use of a fake version of its app to thwart authorities looking into whether it is breaking local laws.

Play Video

A racy rule book for Uber that includes guidelines for having sex with co-workers has surfaced. CBS San Francisco's Joe Vazquez has more.

A company can be aggressive yet have strong values, said Joseph Holt, a business ethics professor at the University of Notre Dame. He cited Starbucks as an example.

"Having a good reputation for ethics is a competitive advantage," Holt said.

A culture change at Uber may be more difficult than Holder envisions.

At an employee meeting Tuesday morning, Bonderman remarked that if a woman was added to the board that there likely would be more talking, according to a recording obtained by Yahoo.

By evening, Bonderman resigned and put out a statement saying the comment was careless and inappropriate. "I do not want my comments to create distraction as Uber works to build a culture of which we can be proud," the statement said.

Read the rest here:
Freewheeling Uber faces major changes over "poor behavior" - CBS News

President Donald J. Trump today announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key positions in his Administration:

If confirmed, Jessica Rosenworcel of Connecticut will serve as a Member of the Federal Communications Commission. Jessica Rosenworcel was recently a Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission from 2012 until January 2017. Previously, she was the Senior Communications Counsel for the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, working for Senator Jay Rockefeller IV from 2009 to 2011, and Senator Daniel K. Inouye from 2007 to 2008. Before joining the Committee, Ms. Rosenworcel worked at the Federal Communications Commission from 1999 to 2007, serving as Legal Advisor and then Senior Legal Advisor to Commissioner Michael J. Copps (2003-2007), Legal Counsel to the Bureau Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau (2002-2003), and as an Attorney-Advisor in the Policy Division of the Common Carrier Bureau (1999-2002). From 1997 to 1999, she was a communications associate at Drinker Biddle and Reath. Ms. Rosenworcel received a B.A. from Wesleyan University and a J.D. from New York University School of Law.

If confirmed, Isabel Marie Keenan Patelunas ofVirginia will serve as Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of the Treasury. Ms. Patelunas is an accomplished member of the Senior Intelligence Service at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), where she has served since 1989. For the last 15 years, she has been in management positions at the CIA supporting the highest levels of government, including serving on rotation to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as Director of the Presidents Daily Brief staff. Ms. Patelunas previously served as Deputy Director of CIAs Office of Middle East and North Africa Analysis, and as Director of the Advanced Analysis Training Program. She has also served in leadership positions in the National Counterproliferation Center and the Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Office. She holds an M.A. from the University of Maryland in International Relations, and a B.A. from the University of Notre Dame

If confirmed, Elinore F. McCance-Katz of Rhode Island will serve as Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use at the Department of Health and Human Services. Elinore McCance-Katz is the Chief Medical Officer for the Rhode Island Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities, and Hospitals. She is also Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior and Professor of Behavioral and Social Sciences at the Alpert Medical School at Brown University. Previously, she served as the first Chief Medical Officer for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). She obtained her PhD from Yale University with a specialty in Infectious Disease Epidemiology and is a graduate of the University of Connecticut School of Medicine. She is board certified in General Psychiatry and in Addiction Psychiatry. She is a Distinguished Fellow of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, and has more than 25 years of experience as a clinician, teacher, and clinical researcher.

View post:
President Donald J. Trump Announces Intent to Nominate Personnel to Key Administration Posts - The White House (blog)

AI isnt going to be a threat to humanity because its evil or cruel, AI will be a threat to humanity because we havent properly explained what it is we want it to do. Consider the classic paperclip maximizer thought experiment, in which an all-powerful AI is told, simply, make paperclips. The AI, not constrained by any human morality or reason, does so, eventually transforming all resources on Earth into paperclips, and wiping out our species in the process. As with any relationship, when talking to our computers, communication is key.

Thats why a new piece of research published yesterday by Googles DeepMind and the Elon Musk-funded OpenAI institute is so interesting. It offers a simple way for humans to give feedback to AI systems crucially, without the instructor needing to know anything about programming or artificial intelligence.

The method is a variation of whats known as reinforcement learning or RL. With RL systems, a computer learns by trial-and-error, repeating the same task over and over, while programmers direct its actions by setting certain reward criteria. For example, if you want a computer to learn how to play Atari games (something DeepMind has done in the past) you might make the games point system the reward criteria. Over time, the algorithm will learn to play in a way that best accrues points, often leading to super-human performance.

What DeepMind and OpenAIs researchers have done is replace this predefined reward criteria with a much simpler feedback system. Humans are shown an AI performing two versions of the same task and simply tell it which is better. This happens again and again, and eventually the systems learns what is expected of it. Think of it like getting an eye test, when youre looking through different lenses, and being asked over and over: better... or worse? Heres what that looks like when teaching a computer to play the classic Atari game Q*bert:

This method of feedback is surprisingly effective, and researchers were able to use it to train an AI to play a number of Atari video games, as well perform simulated robot tasks (like picking telling an arm to pick up a ball). This better / worse reward function could even be used to program trickier behavior, like teaching a very basic virtual robot how to backflip. Thats how we get to the GIF at the top of the page. The behavior you see has been created by watching the Hopper bot jump up and down, and telling it well done when it gets a bit closer to doing a backflip. Over time, it learns how.

Of course, no one is suggesting this method is a cure-all for teaching AI. There are a number of big downsides and limitations in using this sort of feedback. The first being that although it doesnt take much skill on behalf of the human operator, it does take time. For example, in teaching the Hopper bot to backflip, a human was asked to judge its behavior some 900 times a process that took about an hour. The bot itself had to work through 70 hours of simulated training time, which was sped up artificially.

For some simple tasks, says Oxford Robotics researcher Markus Wulfmeier (who was not involved in this research), it would be quicker for a programmer to simply define what it is they wanted. But, says Wulfmeier, its increasingly important to render human supervision more effective for AI systems, and this paper represents a small step in the right direction.

DeepMind and OpenAI say pretty much the same its a small step, but a promising one, and in the future, theyre looking to apply it to more and more complex scenarios. Speaking to The Verge over email, DeepMind researcher Jan Leike said: The setup described in [our paper] already scales from robotic simulations to more complex Atari games, which suggests that the system will scale further. Leike suggests the next step is to test it in more varied 3D environments. You can read the full paper describing the work here.

See original here:
This backflipping noodle has a lot to teach us about AI safety - The Verge

Stephen Berry of Iowa Watchpublished an op/ed that appeared in The Des Moines Register and Cedar Rapids Gazette. Berry, promoting the Iowa K-12 Climate Science Education Initiative, made the following statement that jumped out at me.

At first, people who reject predominant scientific findings that humans are the main cause of climate change may be glad that new public-school science standards dont require teachers to teach that.

But if inquiry-based teaching guides under development in the Iowa K-12 Climate Science Education Initiative are used, students may reach that determination on their own, educators say.

Berrys assertion is fascinating since the Next Generation Science Standards do promote theidea of Climate Change being caused by humans. It is disingenuous to say otherwise.

We see in the weather and climate section of the Middle School Earth and Space Science Standards:

Ask questions to clarify evidence of the factors that have caused the rise in global temperatures over the past century, (MS-ESS3-5).

The clarification statement included under the standard reads:

Examples of factors include human activities (such as fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and agricultural activity) and natural processes (such as changes in incoming solar radiation or volcanic activity). Examples of evidence can include tables, graphs, and maps of global and regional temperatures, atmospheric levels of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, and the rates of human activities. Emphasis is on the major role that human activities play in causing the rise in global temperatures. (Emphasis in bold is mine)

Then you look at the Disciplinary Core Ideas that support the standard, and we see:

ESS3.D: Global Climate Change Human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earths mean surface temperature (global warming). Reducing the level of climate change and reducing human vulnerability to whatever climate changes do occur depend on the understanding of climate science, engineering capabilities, and other kinds of knowledge, such as understanding of human behavior and on applying that knowledge wisely in decisions and activities. (MS-ESS3-5)

Tell me again how the standards dont require teachers teach that Climate Change is predominately caused by humans?

In the weather and climate section of Earth and Space Sciences Standards for High School, the relevant standards are:

We see these two Disciplinary Core Ideas that support the standards above. First for HS.ESS2-4:

ESS2.D: Weather and Climate The foundation for Earths global climate systems is the electromagnetic radiation from the sun, as well as its reflection, absorption, storage, and redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and land systems, and this energys re-radiation into space. (HS-ESS2-4)

Changes in the atmosphere due to human activity have increased carbon dioxide concentrations and thus affect climate. (HS-ESS2-6),(HS-ESS2-4)

For HS.ESS3-5 we see:

ESS3.D: Global Climate Change Though the magnitudes of human impacts are greater than they have ever been, so too are human abilities to model, predict, and manage current and future impacts. (HS-ESS3-5)

Then all one has to do is perusethe human sustainability sectionin the NGSSs Earth and Space Sciences Standards for High School. Then look at thehuman impacts section for the Middle School Earth and Space Sciences Standards to see an emphasis on human activity for climate change, as well as, a progressive bent to environmentalism.

Berry notes that when students read the evidence, they will likely come to that conclusion themselves.

They will look at facts relevant to those questions and draw conclusions that answer their questions, Ted Neal, a University of Iowa clinical science instructor, told IowaWatch.

And what if students look at their scientific data and then conclude that humans have not been the primary causes of climate change in the past century?

That is not possible, Neal answered. Because the data is so overwhelming. Out of 920 peer-reviewed journal articles on this issue, zero found that climate change was not anthropogenic.

Oh yes, peer reviewed, theres the gold standard. 21st-century science has a peer review problem that is not acknowledged by climate change advocates.

A recent Vox article (not a conservative publication by any stretch of the imagination) pointed out that peer review is broken and that peer review bullying can occur.

Thats not to mention the problem of peer review bullying. Since the default in the process is that editors and peer reviewers know who the authors are (but authors dont know who the reviews are), biases against researchers or institutions can creep in, opening the opportunity for rude, rushed, and otherwise unhelpful comments.

Alex Csiszar writing for Nature shows that peer review was troubled from the start.

Current attempts to reimagine peer review rightly debate the psychology of bias, the problem of objectivity, and the ability to gauge reliability and importance, but they rarely consider the multilayered history of this institution. Peer review did not develop simply out of scientists need to trust one anothers research. It was also a response to political demands for public accountability. To understand that other practices of scientific judgement were once in place ought to be a part of any responsible attempt to chart a future path.

Another recent article at the New Republic saysthat science is suffering as a result of problems with peer review.

The flaws in this process are evident in the climate change debate. Those who dont toe the climate change advocate line are often ostracized and even put their careers on the line. Climate science, unfortunately, has become hopelessly biased and politicized.

Unfortunately, as a result, students will only be exposed to one side of the debate.

Shane Vander Hart is the founder and editor-in-chief of Caffeinated Thoughts. He is also the President of 4:15 Communications, LLC, a social media & communications consulting/management firm. Prior to this Shane spent 20 years in youth ministry serving in church, parachurch, and school settings. He has also served as an interim pastor and is a sought after speaker and pulpit fill-in. Shane has been married to his wife Cheryl since 1993 and they have three kids. Shane and his family reside near Des Moines, IA.

The rest is here:
Iowa's New Science Standards and Man-Made Climate Change - Caffeinated Thoughts

EVANSTON - In a passionately argued new book, Northwestern University literary scholar Gary Saul Morson and Northwestern President Morton Schapiro make the claim that economics is missing its humanity, and economists must look to literature to make their research work in the real world.

In their book, Cents and Sensibility: What Economics Can Learn from the Humanities, Morson, an eminent literary critic, and Schapiro, a leading economist, argue that economists often act as if their methods explain all human behavior.Professor Gary Saul Morson (left) and President Morton Schapiro

However, the authors make the case that the humanities, especially the study of literature, offer economists ways to make their models more realistic, their predictions more accurate and their policies more effective and just. The publication date is June 21 with Princeton University Press.

Morson and Schapiro trace the connection between Adam Smith's great classic,The Wealth of Nations, and his less celebrated book The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

They contend that a few decades later, Jane Austen invented her groundbreaking method of novelistic narration to give life to the empathy that Smith believed essential to humanity.

Morson and Schapiro argue that Smith's heirs include Austen, Anton Chekhov and Leo Tolstoy as well as John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman. In so doing, they suggest that economists need a richer appreciation of behavior, ethics, culture and narrative all of which the great writers teach better than anyone.

Cents and Sensibility demonstrates the benefits of a freewheeling dialogue between economics and the humanities by addressing a wide range of problems drawn from the economics of higher education, the economics of the family and the development of poor nations. It offers new insights about everything from the manipulation of college rankings to why some countries grow faster than others. At the same time, the book shows how looking at real-world problems can revitalize the study of literature itself.

Original, provocative and inspiring, Cents and Sensibility brings economics back to its place in the human conversation. The book has already received good reviews.

Publishers Weekly wrote: Insightful and compelling. . . .Morson and Schapiro succeed in finding new ways of thinking about big issues as well as new ways to read classic novels. . . . The case studies read like popular nonfiction. Theres immense joy to be found throughout this work on thinking with creativity and passion.

Robert J. Shiller, Nobel Prize-winning economist and author of Irrational Exuberance, said, In Cents and Sensibility, Morson and Schapiro argue persuasively that the vast intellectual gulf between economics and the humanities is a tragedy for all of us, since it compromises our ability to understand some of the most important trends of our times. The authors show us that this divide is not inevitable: they show steps to close it.

The authors have written a number of op-eds based on the book, as well as a Weekend Essay on LinkedIn.

In the essay, Morson and Schapiro, who have co-taught courses together at Northwestern, observed: After examining material from a wide variety of subjects economics, literature, philosophy, history, psychology, sociology, theology, evolutionary theory and urban planning it has become very clear to us that economics has much to learn from its sister fields. While we do not question the significance of economics as a discipline, neither do we question the payoff from a dialogue with other approaches.

Gary Saul Morson is the Lawrence B. Dumas Professor of the Arts and Humanities and professor of Slavic languages and literatures at Northwestern University. His many books include Narrative and Freedom: the Shadows of Time, Anna Karenina in Our Time and The Words of Others: From Quotations to Culture.

Morton Schapiro is the president of Northwestern University and a professor of economics. His many books include The Student Aid Game (Princeton University Press). Morson and Schapiro are also the editors of The Fabulous Future?: America and the World in 2040.

Read the rest here:
New book calls for putting more humanities into economics - Northwestern University NewsCenter

WannaCry, the recent devastating global ransomware attack, is now the largest of its kind in internet history. The attack has breached hundreds of thousands of computers in more than 150 countries, crippling a wide range of enterprises, from hospitals and universities to banks and warehouses.

In order to breach an enterprise, WannaCry and other forms of crypto-malware have been delivered in zip files, documents, or executables from the web, email attachments and on USB keys. Once WannaCry has infiltrated an organization, it moves laterally, holding computer networks hostage until a ransom is paid. I explained exactly how this process unfolded in a recent blog post:

The WannaCry crypto-malware variant uses the EternalBlue vector to move laterally in an organization. EternalBlue exploits a vulnerability in Microsofts implementation of the Server Message Block (SMB) protocol. This vulnerability is denoted by entry CVE-2017-0144. The vulnerability exists because the SMB version 1 (SMBv1) server in various versions of Windows accepts specially crafted packets from remote attackers, allowing them to execute arbitrary code on the target. To attack a target, the attacker must be able to reach it crossing the firewall. If a compromised computer has mounted shares or knows how to reach an SMB server, the attacker can use this to propagate from the compromised device to the SMB server.

While the attack is now largely in the rearview mirror, ransomware is still very much a concern among enterprises. WannaCry has created a number of lessons in its wake, and its important we take them into account in order to prevent an attack of this scale from happening again.

The first lesson is that quickly patching vulnerable systems is fundamental to stopping lateral spread in any organization. Next is that WannaCry, which was made possible by a leak of the NSAs hacking tools, served as the latest reminder that the good guys cannot keep vulnerabilities from falling into the wrong hands. But the most important takeaway is that humans will continue to cripple cyber security so long as it continues to play such a prominent role in protecting the enterprise.

Although Microsoft publicly released a patch addressing this specific vulnerability weeks before, the thousands of personal computers displaying the now-infamous red ransom script illustrated few had implemented it as instructed. (Of course, its not just humans that are to blame its the security paradigm. Windows XP users did not have this option since XP has been unsupported for three years.)

As I said in my commentary on the attack, As long as the industry continues to play this neverending cat and mouse game of patchwork systems, sophisticated attackers will easily find ways to exploit the public in increasingly large scale attacks such as this.

At Bromium, we released an industry study just a week before the WannaCry attack that underscored the point that humans continue to be the biggest threat to cyber security. We surveyed security professionals at the premier cyber security event, RSA Conference, as well as sec pros from the U.K. and U.S., and were shocked to find its not just unsuspecting end users we need to worry about, but those tasked to oversee the security operation.

We found that on average, 10 percent of security professionals admitted to paying a ransom or hiding a breach without alerting their team. This means that for every 10 individuals on your team, its likely that one of them has committed this act of subterfuge. (Someone might have even done it for WannaCry.) Keep in mind, these are only respondents who were willing to be forthcoming about their behavior if every security professional came forth about their behavior, I would expect this to be an even more alarming statistic.

There are several reasons why these undisclosed dealings are taking place on such a considerable scale. One is that ransoms typically arent that expensive. While paying $300 takes a cut of your checkbook, it is a small price to pay to maintain your professional reputation.

This leads into the main reason why professionals are hiding breaches: Getting owned is embarrassing. No one wants to face ridicule from co-workers or be reprimanded by their boss. But keeping these secrets from employers puts the enterprise at tremendous risk. Not only have you let someone into the network, but youve left a backdoor for the next breach, which is likely to be more complex. This finding not only speaks to the growing sophistication of cyber attacks, which are fooling those being paid handsomely to prevent them, but also to how we continue to underestimate the role humans play in cyber security.

he study also uncovered another deeply troubling finding: On average, 35 percent of security professionals admitted to bypassing their corporate security settings. No one is surprised when employees avoid security settings (at this point, its a given), but it is disturbing to see irresponsible decisions being made within the security department. When you cant trust whats happening on the front lines, it means the model is broken.

If there is one thing we should take away from the fallout of WannaCry, its that we are overdue for a reset in this industry. There is greater urgency than ever to map trustworthiness into technology, not humans. Cyber security solutions should eliminate human error, not enable it.

Enterprises need to embrace security that takes the burden off the end-user and ensures IT and security teams protect their business assets and data. Of course the positive corollary to doing that is end users go back to getting their work done without constraints placed on them by the security team.

While the potential losses from WannaCry are staggering, my hope is it will be a net positive for the industry that inspires sweeping changes across the board. Human nature is a variable that cannot be controlled, and as this episode demonstrated, it will continue to wreak havoc left unfettered. This attack should serve as a watershed moment that resets the security paradigm and actually embraces human behavior rather than try to change it.

Simon Crosby, co-founder and CTO of Bromium

Image Credit: WK1003Mike / Shutterstock

More:
Human nature Is crippling cyber security - ITProPortal