Homo Sapiens Arrived in Europe at Least 41,000 Years Ago

(p. D6) . . . , research reported last week in the journal Science adds heft to recent findings that the first modern human migrants arrived earlier than previously thought, perhaps at least 43,000 to 45,000 years ago.
Two teeth found in separate archaeological sites in Italy appeared to tell the tale of the early effect of Homo sapiens in southern Europe. The teeth were those of modern humans who lived 41,000 years ago, scientists concluded. This seemed to settle a longstanding debate over whether the sharp stone blades and ornaments uncovered at the sites belonged to modern humans or Neanderthals.

For the full story, see:
JOHN NOBLE WILFORD. “Teeth Tell of Earlier Trek to Europe by Humans.” The New York Times (Tues., April 28, 2015): D6.
(Note: ellipsis in original.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date APRIL 27, 2015, and has the title “Teeth Tell of Earlier Trek to Europe by Humans.”)

The academic article summarized above, is:
Benazzi, S., V. Slon, S. Talamo, F. Negrino, M. Peresani, S. E. Bailey, S. Sawyer, D. Panetta, G. Vicino, E. Starnini, M. A. Mannino, P. A. Salvadori, M. Meyer, S. Pääbo, and J. J. Hublin. “The Makers of the Protoaurignacian and Implications for Neandertal Extinction.” Science 348, no. 6236 (May 15, 2015): 793-96.

Jury Out on Whether Bossless Zappos Will Succeed

(p. A1) Brironni Alex was so good at answering telephone calls and emails from customers at Zappos.com Inc. that the company promoted her to customer-service manager.
But when the online retailer adopted a management philosophy called Holacracy, she lost her job title and responsibility for performance reviews. Since the end of April, Zappos has zero managers to oversee employees, who are supposed to decide largely for themselves how to get their work done.
“I am managing the work, but before I was managing the worker,” says Ms. Alex, 26 years old, now part of a team implementing Holacracy throughout Zappos. Ex-managers haven’t been guaranteed another job and could have their pay cut next year, though Zappos says that is unlikely. Ms. Alex says the changes give her more time for a workplace diversity committee and to perform on the Zappos dance team.
The shake-up has been jarring even for a company famous for doing things differently. Earlier this month, Zappos said about 14%, or 210, of its roughly 1,500 employees had decided Holacracy wasn’t for them, and they will leave the retailer.
They were offered at least three months of severance pay by Zappos Chief Executive Tony Hsieh, who wrote in a 4,700-word memo in March that the company hadn’t “made fast enough progress towards self-management.”
. . .
(p. A10) Mr. Hsieh, 41, concedes that Holacracy “takes time and a lot of trial and error.” He still has faith that the system empowers employees “to act more like entrepreneurs” and stokes faster “idea flow,” collaboration and innovation, he says.
. . .
Research shows that the value of flat organizations is mixed, though highly motivated workers who thrive on creativity generally are best suited for going bossless.
The results at Zappos will be watched closely because it has long embraced employee independence even while striving to meet exacting customer-service standards. “Delivering Happiness,” a 2010 book by Mr. Hsieh, was a best seller and spawned a management consulting firm.
. . .
“They are adopting Holacracy as more how to get to the next level, as opposed to how to fix something broken in their system, which is actually one of their unique challenges,” says Brian Robertson, 36, the inventor of Holacracy. The term comes from the word “holarchy,” coined by writer Arthur Koestler for self-organizing units that combine to form a larger organization.

For the full story, see:
RACHEL EMMA SILVERMAN. “Going Bossless Backfires at Zappos.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., May 21, 2015): A1 & A10.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the date of the online version of the story is MAY 20, 2015, and has the title “At Zappos, Banishing the Bosses Brings Confusion.”)

Ed Telling’s Band of Irregulars Had the Freedom to Perform

(p. 482) . . . Bill Sanders, Charlie Bacon’s replacement as the head of corporate personnel, . . . had once served Telling in the East despite having hair that flowed far below his ears. Sanders had grown his hair out in order to irritate an old-school store manager who exercised his sovereign rights by refusing to hire any man not sporting a crew cut. The fact that Telling never told Sanders to cut his hair was an early indication to others in the East that Ed Telling was much more interested in people who could do the job and who exhibited a healthy contempt for the status quo than he was in appearances.
. . .
(p. 492) It was more than dumb luck that his band of loyalists happened to include several supersensitive and insecure men, some deeply religious men, some obsessively ambitious men, several quite short men, and others, from secretaries to former window-dressers, who never fit into the status quo until Ed Telling discovered them and helped them flourish among his private band of irregulars. Along the way, the Eastern Territory troupe was joined by others. Whether they were bright-button kids from Utah itching to accomplish an act that truly counted on a large scale, or frustrated wordsmiths so enamored of the metaphors of power that the practice of management appeared to them in Biblical panoramas, they all had a part. All irregulars were welcome, and in his quiet way Ed Telling played them all. Telling could sense through instinct which people were willing to submit and which ones were willing to fight. Far from being unaware of his motivational skills, Telling would on occasion call Pat Jamieson into his office after one of his managers left, then convey to Pat the elliptical words he’d uttered to the manager, and predict the number of days it would take the officer to come back with the problem ironed out. He was rarely off by more than twenty-four hours. He said his management style involved giving subordinates a great deal of freedom, “the freedom,” he called it, “to perform.”

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

Constitutional Superheroes Created the American Nation

(p. 12) When and how did the United States ­become a nation? This question is the core of “The Quartet.” In his customary graceful prose, Joseph J. Ellis, the author of such works of popular history as the prizewinning “Founding Brothers,” argues that the United States did not become a nation with the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Rather, he says, American nationhood resulted from the creation, adoption and effectuation of the United States ­Constitution.
Ellis declares, “Four men made the ­transition from confederation to nation ­happen. . . . George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison” (along with three supporting players: Robert Morris, Gouverneur Morris and Thomas Jefferson). He writes that “this political quartet diagnosed the systemic dysfunctions under the Articles, manipulated the political process to force a calling of the Constitutional Convention, collaborated to set the agenda in Philadelphia, attempted somewhat successfully to orchestrate the debates in the state ratifying conventions, then drafted the Bill of Rights as an insurance policy to ensure state compliance with the constitutional settlement. If I am right, this was arguably the most creative and consequential act of political leadership in American history.”
. . .
Ellis’s “quartet” are constitutional superheroes, the Fantastic Four of American nationalism.

For the full review, see:
R. B. BERNSTEIN. “Gang of Four.” The New York Times Book Review (Sun., MAY 10, 2015): 12.
(Note: ellipsis internal to paragraph, in original; ellipsis between paragraphs, added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date MAY 5, 2015, and has the title “”The Quartet,’ by Joseph J. Ellis.”)

The book under review, is:
Ellis, Joseph J. The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2015.

Having Your Intellectual Property Stolen, Modifies Your Views on Piracy

(p. C18) Dear Dan,
My nephew has been downloading music and movies illegally from the Internet. Without sounding self-righteous, how can I get him to respect intellectual-property rights?
–Patricia
My own view on illegal downloads was deeply modified the day that my book on dishonesty was published–when I learned that it had been illegally downloaded more than 20,000 times from one overseas website. (The irony did not escape me.) My advice? Get your nephew to create something and then, without his knowing, put it online and download it many, many times. I suspect that will make it much harder for him to keep up his blithe attitude toward piracy.

For the full advice column by Dan Ariely, professor of behavioral economics at Duke , see:
DAN ARIELY. “ASK ARIELY; It’s Risky to Rely on Retirement Questionnaires.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., May 23, 2015): C18.
(Note: italics in original.)
(Note: the online version of the advice column has the date May 22, 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.