In other courses, you found the distance between two points. The distance between other objects is a little more complicated. We could introduce formulas, but we won't. Remember, learn concepts, not formulas. For example, let's try to find the distance between the point 3, 7, and the line y equals 2x minus 8. So a key idea, start with what you know. We know how to find the distance between any two points, so let's consider the distance between the point 3, 7, and some point x, y on the line. As we move along the line, this distance changes. And remember, calculus is the mathematics of changing quantities. Now, what we call the distance between the point and the line is going to be the least value of these distances. Now this is an optimization problem, so let's set it up. The distance between 3, 7, and x, y on the line can be given by the distance formula. But remember, equals means replaceable. On the line, y equals 2x minus 7, so we can replace. And this gives us a function for the distance between a point and the line. To find the extreme values, we'll differentiate. This differentiating a square root gets complicated will square and use implicit differentiation. So s squared equals differentiating and solving. And since the critical values occur when the derivative is zero or undefined, they'll occur where the denominator is zero, which would make the derivative undefined, or where the numerator is zero, which would make the derivative zero. So remember, s is the distance between the point and the line, so s equals zero would require the line to pass through the point. But 3, 7 is not on the line, so s can never be zero. So the critical value must be where the numerator is zero, solving gives us, and you should probably reduce this, but this isn't an arithmetic class, focus on the calculus. Now remember, we should always verify the critical value corresponds to an extreme value. So we could use the first or second derivative test to verify that our solution 62 tenths corresponds to a minimum distance. But from geometry, we know that there will be no maximum distance between a point and the line, so this critical value must correspond to a minimum. Sometimes we want the actual distance we'll substitute into the equation and find, and this gives us the distance between the point and the line, and again you can reduce this if you want to, but this is a calculus class, not arithmetic. One of the advantages to the calculus approach is that while we use this to find the distance between a point and a line, nothing changes if we use a different curve. So let's try to find the distance between a point and a parabola. So again, the distance between our point and some point on the parabola will be, but equals means replaceable, so y squared equals 8x, and so we can rewrite this as, and again we want to find the minimum distance, so we'll find s squared and differentiate. While s equals zero would be a critical value, the parabola does not pass through the point, so s can never be zero, and so the only critical value will occur when the numerator is zero. So the other critical value will be the solution too, and since we want the actual distance we'll substitute into our distance formula to find as the distance between the point and the parabola.


The use of this passage is so annoying by some people. It's not the passage that's the problem. It's how they use the passage. And it's not really a passage that they quote, but it's an understanding of the passage. And this is when the Bible speaks of Balaam being spoken to by his donkey, how God used the donkey. This comes up when a false teacher, false prophet, a heretic, a wolf is called out. Inevitably, someone who does not value the scriptures who wants to defend them or wants to defend someone else will say, God can use whomever they want to use. God can use a donkey. Why can't God use this person? Have you heard that before when they'll say, who were you to say who God can use? Or you can't put God in a box. That is just so annoying sometimes to say that again, God can use a donkey. He can use this person. Well, here's the question. Was the donkey saved? Did the donkey go to heaven?  No, stop using this thing out of context. Now this story takes place in Numbers 22 and this is after Balaam had struck the donkey and the donkey stops and then they're having a conversation, which by the way is an interesting conversation for a man having with a donkey. But notice what point the people who claim that God can use anything he wants to. And guess what? God can't, you know why? You know why God can use anything that he wants because everything is his. But notice this point of this particular passage that they don't ever bring up. In verse 33 says, But the donkey saw me and turned aside from me these three times. This is the angel of the Lord speaking to him. Notice what the donkey did that false prophets, false teachers don't do, nor the people that defend them. The donkeys saw the Lord and stopped. So if you're going to use a donkey, use a donkey in proper context. The donkey sees the Lord and stops. But these false teachers, these false prophets, they will not do so. But if you call them out, then you're the problem. Because again, you are trying to stop or you're trying to dictate what God is going to do. You're not putting God in the box. Notice how we're doing. It's not saying that we're going to put God in the box. God has determined how he's going to use himself. God has determined what he's going to do and how he's going to do it. Remember, God can and will use everything because again, everything belongs to him. He will use you to get glory either through you or in spite of you. The man born blind, God used him to get glory through him, but there's others who God used to get glory in spite of them. Think about Judas. Would you like to be Judas? Would you like to be his example? Or what about Pharaoh? The Bible says in Romans 9, 17, that for this very purpose, I raise you up speaking of Pharaoh to demonstrate my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed throughout all the earth. Is that what you want God to use you for to be used like he used Pharaoh? When a person brings up or says something that goes against the scriptures, our job, according to Peter, is to re-prove that person, prove that that's wrong and rebuke the people who continue to follow that person according to 2 Timothy 4. Why? Because as he says, the time will come when they will not endure a sound doctrine. They'll keep following these people and say that what they're doing is spiritual or of the Lord when you compare it to the scriptures and you see it's not inevitably again someone's gonna come and say, who are you to say? Who are you to judge? God can use whomever. Again, God is not gonna use something that goes against his word. He's not gonna use that person for glory. He'll use that person to show his wrath. He'll use that person to show his discipline. And again, if you're gonna say that God can use the donkey, at least the donkey opened his eyes and saw. What about some of these false teachers? And more to the point, what about some of you supporting some of these false teachers? Will God open your eyes like he did the donkeys?


First off, and most importantly, thanks to everyone for the great spirit birthday party, celebration, wedding, all of these things rolled into one for Birkman at 10 and to have celebrated it with all of you. We're going to end the substantive portion here this afternoon with a series of questions. So I'll explain it in one moment. But we're actually going to go literally just till 5.30 and then release everyone. So pretty much everything I've learned at the Birkman Center has come from two great teachers sitting over here. Charles Nesson and Jonathan Zitron are founding directors. And one of the things they are such masters at is teaching in every possible sense. As an evidence teacher, Charles Nesson about the nature of truth and everything that flows from that. Jonathan Zitron, the iconic teacher of cyber law, internet and society, technologies and politics of control, the class that many of us have taken that got us to right here. And one of the things they do in the class, in addition to using computers in the classroom actually to good effect, an unusual skill, is that they pass out a feedback form at various points in the course of the semester, often in the middle, but also at the end. And on the top of that page, they write what's your biggest thought and what's your biggest question. So what we're going to do here for the last half hour is to just put big questions for the next decade in the spirit of Nesson and Zitron. We're going to do it in real space here, but we're also going to collect them on the question tool up top. So this is not about answers. This is about what should we do collectively for the next decade as scholars and activists and occasionally crazy people and pains and the whatever, as Charlie would put it for the next decade. So that's the game. And then at 5.30 we will release those of you who are registered and coming to the gala. We'll see you at that point. And Charlie, you're also having some people over tomorrow if people are around as well, right? So do you want to mention this before everyone goes to the four wins? The idea is that I have an open house at my house tomorrow morning. There's some starting at 10, the idea is if you're off to the airport and you want to drop by and just say hello and meet people on the way out, more than welcome to come. I live at Five Hubbard Park Road. You can Google it. It's a very nice walk from here, like maybe 10 minutes through the common and down past. Well, it's very nice. And just follow the crowds. They'll all be going to Shea Nesson. It's a great place. Excellent. Some people may be jumping in the pool, depending on how warm it is. Yeah, right. All right, so what's your biggest question? What should we be doing individually and together?  We have a lot of people in the room, so perhaps the questions might be relatively short and preferably with a question mark. Our good friend from Trinity College, Dublin, who's just gotten a teaching job, a lectureship in England, Dahi, will you start us off with the biggest question that we ought to be asking for the next decade and press your button? And read his blog for much more. Okay, the question that I'd be left with at the end of this session, and at the end of, I suppose, looking back at what Berkman Center has done and as someone who's relatively new, I mean, when Berkman Center was founded, I hadn't even started my university studies. And you're looking back then saying, well, obviously there's been an awful lot of important work done by the center and by people in the areas of internet studies, cyber law and so on. What I've noticed on it has come up in a number of different discussions so far is the level of convergence between things that you would perceive as specifically internet law issue or an issue concerning those who would self-identify as doing their research, their teaching, their analysis, their policy interventions in the area of the internet. And the question then is obviously we said yesterday that the Berkman Center has now become a center of the university, rather than the law school and something that everybody has welcomed. But what the specific role of the center as well as similar centers around the world, I think many of you here have come from centers that while not necessarily in any way duplicating what's happening here, certainly have taken some measure of inspiration or taken their cue from work there, people who've been doing this work all the way along. And what is the idea then of doing internet studies or within the law school environment doing cyber law when there's so much overlap between these issues? We've heard from Ethan Zuckerman in quite some detail about the Global Voices Project and that's something that is a classic example of at the moment located within the Berkman environment and has emerged from some of the wonderful people in that but it's not something that's just about the internet, it's about how you do it. And I'd ask that question then. What in 10 years time, what will the role of the Berkman Center have been? Will it have expanded even further given this role as part of university and centers like it? And is it possible to have that whole universe of human talk within just one center? That's great. Andrew McLaughlin from Google and long time, multiple time, first friend and fellow. Groupie. Never left. All right, so I get a question for the Berkmanites. So the thing that I think I learned from the Berkman Center when I first showed up was that it was motivated or animated by this basic insight that information is power. So the reason that it made sense to study this tech nerdy stuff at a law school was because it really was about power. And so Jonathan would teach about control and control was about the ways in which different actors that are used to having power in other environments are trying to exercise it in this new environment. And the tension that emerged over the Berkman Center is a very normal one in an academic center over the last 10 years. And that is the tension between studying and describing and doing. And that tension has been kind of interesting and healthy. And the thing that the different camps that leaned more towards studying and academic sort of oriented work and the activist, geek, punky doing, what united them when things worked well was that both sides respected the other side's the other side's devotion to rigor and data and actually measuring stuff. So my challenge for the Berkman Center for the next 10 years is how are you going to take the academic work which can uniquely be done at a place with the resources, brand name, depth, and now history of Harvard and the Berkman Center but maintain the aim of actually getting things done in the real world that make a difference for the people for whom the power that flows through these networks can really change their lives. I love it, I love it, I love it. David Hornick, my co-teacher for Venture Capital, the best VC on Sand Hill Road. That's quite a lead up. Well then it's a perfect introduction for my follow up to that question and comment which is that there is this tendency to talk about power and the dynamics of law and how it influences power and I would say that what is maybe not discussed or considered or focused on as much as power is money and whether money is that proxy for power but it is a massive motivator, certainly in my world it is arguably the only motivator but it is a massive motivator in these ecosystems and so how can the Berkman Center without feeling dirtied consider this question of how money is influenced and will influence these choices and decisions. So for example, as I sit here next to my colleague from Google as we're starting to have some very significant data wars, right? I mean it is very important arguments right now about data and profile, et cetera, in Facebook and Google and Myspace all trying to vie for your profile. Those wars aren't about the data, those wars are about the dollars that come off of that data and so anyway, the question is how can we continue to focus on the important legal aspects but with an understanding that these things are at least in part motivated and influenced by the money that falls off of it. It's not all cooperation after all, right? Professor Zitrin, you're about to press your button. It doesn't, all right. What's the role of the county? Maybe it's trying to tell me something. No, I was just gonna say he should fund us to study on money. Professor Best, Michael Best from Georgia. I was just gonna say, you know, the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, well three billion people on this planet aren't on the internet and their society is invisible to the net, discuss. I love it, concise. Professor Schieber from the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and a Berkman director, what should we be studying for the next decade? I have no clue, but let me just say that, so something that I found interesting in the last two days was the relentless discussion of openness. Of course, it was a theme of the workshop and a lot of discussion about how openness, either explicitly or implicitly, openness doesn't happen by itself. Eternal vigilance is necessary. We all agree it's a wonderful thing. Makes you kind of wonder, if it's so wonderful, why is eternal vigilance necessary? Who's holding it all back? But it is necessary and this kind of thought has to be, this kind of vigilance has to be broad-based because the benefits of openness often come in small amounts to many people instead of a benefit that comes in large amounts to a small number of people, which is the kind of benefit. Which is between Michael Best and David Hornick, right here. And that means we need to keep thinking about how to achieve openness, something that I've been thinking about recently a lot myself in one particular way, which means, and here's the shameless plug, we need places like the Berkman Center to provide the critical intellectual mass for this kind of thinking. So that the distribution of the thinking isn't so widely dispersed that we can't get the ideas percolating up into some kind of Watercolors? Centrally coalesced place that the next step can be taken. So there's no question there. Well, the question is how do we maintain the Berkman Center so it can continue to be this critical mass of things about openness? Where's Ronaldo Lemos? Ronaldo, from FTV, Brazil, one of our great partners. It is. Unpressed, unpressed, and just keep going.  Do you mind, Maya? Sorry, okay. So, one of the things that I think it's really important and that's something that I can testify is the fact that the Berkman Center has inspired the creation of other centers in the developing world. So, coincidentally, our center, the center that I run in Brazil, we are now 12 people working full-time, is called Center for Technology and Society. One might wonder why. Where did you get this name? Yes, where did we get it? And that's one of the things, like the type of work that the Berkman Center has done and has been doing is inspiring new ways of thinking that are developing on its own in the developing world. So, one of the things that I think it's important for the next 10 years is to see how these original lines of thought that were initiated here in the Berkman Center grew in other contexts. So, for instance, like in Brazil. And one thing that I can say because of the research that we've been doing there is that there's a lot of innovation that is coming from the peripheries. Like developing countries and even like peripheries in the developing, in developed world as well. So, one of the issues that I think is really important is how do you learn from this innovation that is taking place in the margins and how these ideas that were sometimes originated here grow differently in other contexts. That's great, that's great. Let's hear from Europe. Where's Juan Carlos de Martín? Juan Carlos, sorry, I missed you to hear. Tell us about what's going on in 3D. Of course, I very much as director of the another center that was inspired, is inspired by the Berkman Center. I very much agree with Will Ronaldo because we need to decline and to develop our line of thought in our specific regions and part of the world. But on top of that, I would like to add something else that I think it's crucial in the next 10 years as far as I can tell. Which is that I perceive an imbalance of power right now between the individual network citizen with respect to other entities. Meaning that companies and potentially governments are developing sort of a panopticon where they know what we're doing but we don't know what we are doing. So finding ways to like the Herdick project or other ways where we can collectively and individually put together information about what we are doing, it will try to restore this imbalance of power. That's great. Is Ethan Zeckerman in the room? Ethan talks about lightweight collaboration between entities. It's a great concept. Dr. Nash, Victoria Nash from the Oxford Internet Institute, will you tell us what we should be asking for the next 10 years? Well I guess picking up on the theme of power that other people were talking about at the back, one of the other corresponding values that's been a big thing for me these last two days has been equality. And so my question to you would be first of all a research-based question which is how egalitarian is the net? And a values-oriented question which would be how egalitarian could or should it be? And specifically just to sort of break that down perhaps into two possible types of research. You know we've been talking quite a bit about the possibility of there being more voices on the internet, more information on the internet. But we don't seem to have an awful lot of evidence as to how many voices are being heard or whose voices are being heard. You know there's a difference between speaking and being heard. So that's one area I think that it will be important to look at. And the second, I think it's Persephone, one of her themes that she tried to get a breakout session on was gatekeepers. Now we often talk about gatekeepers in a very negative sense but I think increasingly we need to think about well could we have an internet without gatekeepers? I don't think we could. And when they're so friendly, it's Andrew at Google. Isn't it a good thing? Exactly, we like Andrew. We couldn't do without Andrew. So given that we have to have gatekeepers, you know how can we ensure an appropriate balance of power? And they're nice. Yeah, exactly. That's good. To keep with the accent, Philip Hallenbaker from Verisign. Will you press your button please? Yeah, a couple of points. One of them, criminal activity on the net, we really going to need much better tracking of what's going on there. But more widely, I can't tell you what problems you're going to be looking at in 10 years but I think that the nature of the problem is going to be something that comes up between the cracks. I'll give you an example. At the moment the hottest field in security is security usability. And the problem there is that we have security people and we have usability people and the two are still not talking. And the problem is that the usability people have defined their field in terms of cognitive science and this is how we do it and this is our template for how we approach it. And the security people are saying, well, yes, but you're not listening to us and you're not even hearing from us what the security issues are. You're solving the wrong problems. And we've been beating our heads together for 18 months now and it'll probably be another two years. So I think that that's the type of issue you'll be dealing with. The pieces that come up between the cracks and don't belong to anyone, department in the university. We need a new field called user-curity. Absolutely. Esther Hurgatay is next but what's the title of your new book? It's just come out. Oh, the Dock Crime Manifesto. The Dock Crime Manifesto. How to stop internet crime. Awesome. Esther Hurgatay. Oh, you want Doc Prish? Oh, yes, please turn it off. So back to social inequality one more time. So we actually know a lot by now about social inequality. You tell me your gender, your age, your education, your parents' level of education, your race and ethnicity and I can tell you a lot about what you do online. What we know less about is whether that is actually having real world effects on your social status and how. So that's the sort of the really big next question. So is it feeding back into people's position in society? And then to tie it to what Andrew was asking about real world aspects. So what can we actually do about it? So I focus on skill and I'd really like to know what it is that we can do in improving people's skills and there's so much to do in that realm and we're basically clueless at this point in knowing how to improve people's skills and get them to, like if we want more people to be heard or even just participating, we don't really know how to do that. We don't know how to get them to do it. There is way too much focus on assuming that people do or do not do things by choice and not realizing that people are actually very much influenced by their position in society and I think we need to move past these discussions of oh well, they want to or it's just a luxury or what not and recognize that if people don't understand and don't have the tools and they're not gonna be participating. Yes sir, I can't wait to do it with you. That's good. Docs or else? The short one, is the internet public? And if so, then what? We've framed it a great deal in commercial terms. What the telcos are doing, how to fight the telcos, the rest of it. But is it inherently public in the same way as, say, water, roads, sunlight, other things are? Question that Yochai Benkler has asked once or twice in the past 10 years. Ari Melber, what should we be focused on? How can we better understand and mitigate participation exhaustion, particularly among active users or popular people? Larry Lessig says he doesn't do email or at least publicly says that. Joshua Michael Marshall told us at lunch he can't review a lot of the emails they're getting even though he also told us that's a core part of his iterative process. And if we're gonna have a portable online identities and comment on blogs but then have people push back and commenting on a blog means responding to five more comments or feeling like you gave up the fight in a political context, then how does the lower barrier to entry in participation actually end up, at least in high active universes, create a paradox where you have to come back and participate more in your exhausted so you don't participate at all? That's great. Oliver Goodenup, will you give us a question for the next 10 years? Question for the next 10 years. I would follow along with my own particular interests which are how are we going to organize all of these wonderful communities that the net makes possible? What is going to be the interface between law and social custom and all of those things that will provide both new and astonishing ways of doing it and how do we make some of the old ones work? Professor of Computer Science, former Dean of Harvard College. One of the gatekeepers of the past. The merger of computing and communication has not been completed yet. We're in still some very intermediate stage here and 10 years from now, we're not all gonna be walking around with both laptops and cell phones and the rest of the world that doesn't have the laptops is probably not gonna be walking around with laptops and cell phones either. That's not the direction in which progress is gonna be made. So can we invent that thing? And if we can't invent it, let's invent it at Harvard but if we can't invent it at Harvard, can we at least be in early enough on how it develops whatever that device is that everybody's gonna have 10 years from now so that it's the captive of the forces of good rather than the forces of evil. That's great. Will you please tell us the title of your book that comes out next month? Yes, I have a book with Hal Abelson and Ken Ledine coming out next month called Blown to Bits, Your Life, Liberty and Happiness After the Digital Explosion. Thank you. And I've read it in galleys. You should definitely, definitely read it in the real copy. Where's Rod Sharp? He's over there. You must have a question for us. The voice of the BBC. I was very grateful that we started with a session from Jonathan Zittrain because it helped me understand what this was all gonna be about. And my question is taken really from a quote from Gene Spofford, which is in Jonathan's book, which is how are we gonna deal with people? Another billion users online who are being raised in environments of poverty with little or no education about proper IT use. So much, it seems to me, of what the Berkman has been about has been evolving rules and procedures and ways of living. Our internet experience now is vastly different from what it was in 1992 when I used Netscape 1.2 to download in about two minutes one picture from the Notting Hill Carnival on the Guardian website. And I thought that was wonderful. What's my experience gonna be like in 10 years time with another billion users jostling for what is maybe finite space? I don't even know, is that the question? Person to answer it right behind you, Vera Frans from the OSI, your London neighbor and somebody funding just this expansion. Yeah, my question really is very short. So how can we make Berkman thought mainstream and to the point of being boring in the next 10 years? That will be, I think, then the world will be a better place. So if we can work on that, that'd be great. And more grants, is that the answer? Sorry. More grants, bigger ones? Yeah. That wasn't a yes, I don't think. And just a footnote, one thing we're thinking about a lot is the sort of meaning of open society. And for example, pointing to Russia where possibly the open society Russians want and I'm being sort of blunt here now, is not necessarily the open society. That is our ideal. So we know the internet in Russia is not really being censored in a great way. And yet it's a close society. And how do we really face, address that challenge and what role does the internet play here and how can we solve that problem? Thanks. Tom S. from the NSA slash Kennedy School slash Berkman Center. Yeah, I think a great challenge for the Berkman Center over the next 10 years would be sort of along Andrew's point of contacting with the real world and not the commercial side but government so that the bridges are built that you reach out, that you bring in the people who are gonna have to make decisions about internet governance or how we control the stampers, how all of the questions that are there. So I think that'd be tremendous because you have great intellectual horsepower here that we need. Richard Sebel. I was talking with someone from an Italian newspaper earlier about the question of where is privacy, these issues. We've talked a lot about openness and a fair amount about government secrecy but personal privacy. When I was a fellow about 10 years ago, my project was privacy and cyberspace. So I hope that Berkman Center will, why ask? What will the Berkman Center do about the questions of privacy, particularly government data banks, ID schemes, keeping information to control people where the internet is part of this process but they're really larger internets. If only Zitron would say yes and we'll be all set. Professor Bracken. How can you help us reconceive of government as a we instead of a they? Come on, John, it's they, the people. What are you talking about? So the question I would say that needs to be looked at is now that Berkman is a Harvard Center and not just a Harvard Law Center. What can be done to bring in other parts of the school and sort of by extension the world into the discussions that haven't been here. So for example, the School of Education. I mean, some of the issues today, for example we dealt with in terms of laptops in the classroom were discussions we've had in the ed world for years. And then also let's say the School of Theology and any other, the other parts of Harvard that are many and I'm sure I don't even know about who I think might have something to say in this discussion. Charlie Nessum keeps saying there's divinity in the net. I believe it's true yet. Wendy Kozler, will you tell us what we should be studying for the next 10 years? One of the all time great Berkman staff people. Thanks for putting me on the spot, John. You're welcome. Ex-boss prerogative. Well, I had something in my mind and it's gone now but what I'm doing right now is a project that's all unconferences all the time and what I put on the board out there is will unconferences become the norm and you'll have to explain to newbies what a panel is. Very well put, very well put. Beth Kolko. So going back to the privacy question and the device question. So as the computer and the phone and all those things come together and it's not just databases of what you're looking for but it's where you are when you're looking for it and where you are when you're making a call. How are those privacy questions going to be addressed by Berkman? I love it. David Weinberger. Actually I want to steal a point from Beth Kolko. It's all yours. So I'm gonna ask the squishiest question possible I think. So yesterday as everybody was talking about openness and open that and it's the value that holds all of Berkman together I think we all but we don't all agree on what openness means. It occurred to me that the thing that actually does hold Berkman together, the shared value and that probably for everybody here is that we really, really love the internet. We just love the internet. How many people were at RaffleCon by any chance? Ooh actually, not a smattering, not a bad percentage. The atmosphere, it seems that the RaffleCon which was a sort of internet pop culture conference where 22 was old. The atmosphere, the tone, this is Beth's point which I may be mangling but was very, very different. It's a very different type of love of the internet. A deep love of the internet seemed very, very different. So in 10 years, how are we gonna love the internet? I love it, that's great. Veronica Alfaro, what should we be studying until the next 10 years? I have the opposed question from the other side. How do we keep the Berkman Center out of mainstream thought? And I mean it in a way that it stills, that that's still going to be critical thinking and pointing fingers at what's wrong, what's good and what should be done. And what people can do to keep the internet going on an everyday basis and social change. And taking a cue from JC, how the grandmask with their iPods and no expertise on internet can make a change. That's wonderful. Glad to notice, Brown, may I call on you as one of the original Berkman students, organizer of Signal to Noise, Signal to Noise and also the YouTube, the one you're in today. Yeah, I will hazard a question that I, in an area I know nothing about it all but that hasn't stopped me before. So I would say, is there a place for bioscience at Berkman? So I think that, like Andrew said, that kind of one of the core unspoken things that Berkman was about, you know, information is power and solid study power. I sort of think that looking back on it over the years, one of the core things that Berkman has been about is this sort of studying the internet as an exercise in existential living. Like, you know, Lessig's first book was really saying like there is no inherent nature to the internet. It's up to us to figure out what it's going to be. And I think the same kinds of questions and the same kinds of questions about divinity that Charlie was talking about are obviously right in the middle of bioscience and bioethics and all that. And I wonder if that can't be an area of study. Great. Professor Yoakai Benkler. Couple of things, in some sense I've already said them. One is I think how we think beyond the internet, not in the sense of what the device will be, but what have we learned from living through a moment of perturbation about ourselves and about how we can be together and structure our relations. And so how to begin to think about human systems design generally, about our ability to collaborate and act socially in effective ways, using technologies but not only using habits, using institutions, using designs of ways of being together. And building on the fact that we have a generation that as you say, David loves the internet in a different way, but is deeply about creating and sharing and being social. And so how do we build systems more generally, moving beyond only the internet to learning what we learned and extending it to all forms of ways of being together and living together. And the second question I just want to emphasize this last point, how do we mature methodologically, institutionally, organizationally without becoming old? How do we mature and remain constantly using the incredible privilege we have to ask questions that we know will fail many times? I love it. Jonathan Zittrain, will you give us a question? I guess my question has to do with, I've been thinking that most books are written by authors and it's great to see books not written by authors, people that for whatever reason, have the time and the space to full time to vote themselves to writing a book and now there's a possibility that people might write books that aren't in that very self-selected and unrepresentative group. And part of the magic of the net is it lets people not have to be the identity of the thing to do the thing. I was struck by David Weinberger's description of Raffle Con, I wasn't there. But I can't help but think that some of the goofiness and innanity of it, the wonderful innanity of it, is exactly the spirit of the internet that we're trying to celebrate here and that I'm continually amazed and amused by. And that actually even connects up to Yochai's observation about how do we age without getting old. It's the ability not to take ourselves so goddamn seriously while doing serious things and worrying about things like billions of people out there who are about to join the club digitally speaking. And that's part of what has made this enterprise over the past 10 years so great. And part of I think what is a thread for basically everybody in the room, people I talk to, it's, you know, we're doing serious stuff but we don't take ourselves so goddamn seriously. And I think that's great. John Perry the Barlow, you're about to be cold-called having walked in the room as one of the people who asked the key question right at the beginning, what's the question we should be asking for the next 10 years of the Birkeland Center? And please press your button for posterity. I think the question that we need to ask is the question that is going to be asked or the series of questions that are gonna be asked by people who are not like us. I mean, we have been fairly representative of most of the folks in cyberspace to begin with. I mean, most of the 10 years of our history but we are not any longer representative in terms of our backgrounds, our languages, our understandings of what this thing is and we need to go on helping those questions, be asked and give them a framework in which to understand the answers that have already been given and be very open to the answers that they may come up with that are quite different from ours. That's great. Bob Frankson, give us one of the last questions. I wanna go a little, starting with what Yochai said. The internet itself is just an artifact, sort of, it was literally an engineering prototype. The question is, what's society gonna be like once the internet has become internalized as basic literacy? And in terms of Berkman, how are we gonna re-examine the legal system when many of the precedents and assumptions deeply embedded over the last few centuries are challenged? Just one example being the idea that meaning is no longer intrinsic in the wire but it's something we create at the edge. David Lira, are you in the room from CPB? Please, give us a question. The public broadcasting emerged in this country when it was clear that marketplace forces were not going to treat the listeners and viewers as anything more than consumers. This is just about 40 years ago. And the question is, are we at a similar inflection point when we can conclude that marketplace forces alone will not assure that the needs of this democratic society are well-served? And so the question is, what is the role of public service media, however defined, in this democratic society in the emerging media environment? I think our conversations of the last two days should make all of us somewhat nervous about relying solely on marketplace forces to serve that old-fashioned notion of the public interest. Second to last question. Where's Erika Siakwan? Give us a second to last one, Eric. Mine will be short. In other words, how do we understand Africa more from the internet? So the last question, I wish this would go up, but it won't. The last question should go to the man who asked the first question. Charlie Nesson, what's the question for the next 10 years? Well, the question for me is always the meaning of existence, but I guess that's a little broad if you found the answer, so. The question in shorter term for me really is, can we figure out how to engage kids of all ages in an open, integrated media educational environment in a way that has them learning critical, algorithmic, strategic thinking skills in a form that we can measure? And that can be used as a meaningful credential. And the step beyond that for me is, what is the business plan that would actually support that? I myself don't think the answer is in philanthropy. I think that philanthropy could be a wonderful source of the venture capital for learning how to do it, but ultimately, if the open net's going to survive and really fill the commons, I think it has to find its own way of supporting itself. So as Charlie says, it has been an amazing two days. The suggestions of the last 40 minutes, like many of the suggestions over the course of the two days have been profound, stimulating, somewhat humbling. I was nudged by John sitting here thinking how to respond, concluded that the comprehensive response is hopeless. We'll just have to mull over the different suggestions. So here's a deliberately partial set of reactions. First is, the urban center has, from the beginning, been committed to serving the public interest. May seem an obvious objective, but with an university environment, not necessarily so. One of the implications of that commitment to the public interest is that it has posed from the beginning, just as Andrew suggested, a tension between a research agenda and an activist agenda. And that tension continues. Exists at the present and will likely exist for the next decade. It's exemplified within the center, finds incarnated within the center by different tilts of its faculty. I myself find the research side more often engaging. But each of us shares to different degrees this pull. And Charlie's most recent reference to education is an example of the activist side that I think we all share. So there's not much more to say about that than to acknowledge the continued salience of this dialectic, or that's the first thing. With respect to substance, several of the comments made here and several of the comments over the last couple of days, I think properly remind us of the importance of paying continued attention to the degree to which the communication medium of the internet or any subsequent communication medium is available to all persons in the world. To some extent, this is a matter of the digital divide, a continued matter of continuing importance, but not just. The digital divide implies an on-off distinction whereas as we all know by now, access is not really on-off, access is mediated, access is filtered, it's burdened by surveillance, it's curtailed by economics. And so studying the extent, the degree to which this medium is available all persons remains a matter of continuing importance for us and to pick up the activist theme attending to ways in which we can help expand connection is important. But pause there, if things become complicated even on that issue, access is not an unmitigated good or access to an unfiltered, unmoderated, unmanaged environments, not obviously socially beneficial and we have to despite our continued long-standing attachment to the idea of openness, recognize that some points of closure may not be such a bad idea. Okay, third thing is comments of the last 40 minutes have reminded us of the extent to which the Berkman Center is far from alone in this space and that the study of the relationship between the internet, law, society, economics and culture properly should be distributed in the straightforward sense that there are now as Ronaldo and Juan Carlos remind us, many such centers springing up all over the world, pursuing some of the same topics, some different topics. We need to remain in constant communication among ourselves as a group of centers. And more broadly in the ways that both York High and Jonathan have taught us we have to or we can best do our work if we engage a large number of people not formally organized in centers at all, netizens in the broad sense of the term to help. So carrying on the work of the next decade in a distributed fashion seems critical. Okay, fourth and last thought in response to these suggestions is how can we as a center best relate over the next decade to what I think of as the other estates? Government, for-profit sector, the not-for-profit sector, how can we as an arm of the university now relate to each of these fundamental and actually standpoint of scale and power more important institutions than we are? Well, here too I think trying to sustain a balance, a delicate balance is gonna be critical. We have to on the one hand preserve our independence. We have to keep posing hard questions and when necessary making hard answers. And we have to be careful in the projects we take on and the funding we take on to ensure that we never imperil our independence. On the other hand, it's important that we listen and cooperate and assist in the project of shaping this environment. Avoid the sins of hubris and arrogance. Brought back in this context to a line in Walt Whitman's song of myself in which he celebrates a particular epistemological posture which summarizes as both in and out of the game and watching and wondering at it. Something of that sort seems necessary if we're going to sustain a both constructive but also independent role in this environment. So as I say, I suggested at the beginning, your suggestions are stimulating and humbling. We'll do our best over the next decade to pay attention to them. Thanks so much to everybody for coming and we hope to be in touch with all of you in the years to come. Thanks.


Good day everybody, this is Dr. Sanjay Sanyal, Professor of the Department Chair. So this is going to be a section of the media standard. So we have completely exposed the thoracic cavity, we have removed the two lungs from here, we have removed the heart from here, which I shall bring into the focus. Just to bring you up to speak, I am standing on the right side of the cadaver. Camera person is also on the right side. My assistants are on the either side. This is the head end. This is the foot end. You can see the two bones of the diaphragm here. This is the right side. That is the left side. So we have completely cleaned up the medistinal structures. First let's take a look at the obvious structures which are easily identifiable. So we can see this is the ascending aorta. The ascending aorta then becomes the arch of aorta. And the arch of aorta then goes to the left and posteriorly. And it continues down as the descending thoracic aorta. And after that it will escape through the aortic hiatus in the diaphragm. So ascending aorta is in the middle medistinum. The arch of aorta is in the superior medistinum. And the descending thoracic aorta is in the posterior medistinum. While you are looking at the arch of aorta, I will draw your attention to these three important vessels. We can see this one here. This is the brachioscephalic trunk, which will go up in the neck and it will divide into right subclavian and right common carotid artery. Next, this one here. This is the left common carotid. And the third one that you see here, these are the great vessels. This is the left subclavian artery. These great vessels, great branches of the arch of aorta are located in the root of the neck. While we are also looking at the arch of aorta, I will draw your attention to this ligamentous structure here. And if you feel it, you can feel that it is tendinous and chord-like. This ligamentous structure is the remnant of the ligamentum arteriosum, which was connected to the bifurcation of the pulmonary trunk, which I am going to show you in a different view. It is not visible here. And while we are looking at the ligamentum arteriosum, I will draw your attention to this structure here. This is the curving recurrent laryngeal nerve, which curves just lateral to the ligamentum arteriosum. And if I turn the arch, you can see this nerve. This is the recurrent laryngeal nerve. And I have picked it up with my forcep here. The recurrent laryngeal nerve comes from that side, lateral to the ligamentum arteriosum, and it curves under the arch of aorta and it climbs up on the neck. So this is the recurrent laryngeal nerve. So when there is an aneurysm of the arch of aorta, it can compress on the recurrent laryngeal nerve and it can produce hoarseness of voice. This is an important clinical correlation to be remembered. The next structure, which is visible to us, is the bifurcation of the trachea. So this is the trachea. We can see the tracheal rings. The trachea rings are C-shaped, elastic cartilage, and posteriorly the trachea rings are absent. They are covered by a muscle called the trachealis muscle. And at the level of approximately the sternal angle of Louis, they bifurcate into a right-principle bronchus and a left-principle bronchus. Now if you look very carefully, you will find that the right-principle bronchus is almost a direct continuation of the trachea. So therefore foreign body, inhaled accidentally, inhaled foreign body, will go directly into the right lung most often, more than 90% of the cases. That's why when we are doing a suspected foreign body removal, we will check in the right lung first through fiber-optic bronchoscopy. The left bronchus, principal bronchus, is slightly at an angle. We have removed the lung, which I am going to show you just after I have dissected this out. So this is the next structure. Remember the trachea is in the superior mediastinum. It does not extend beyond the superior mediastinum because it bifurcates at the level of sternal angle of Louis, which is the level of the fifth thoracic vertebra. And we can see the soft trachealis muscle at the back here. That's the next structure that we see here. Finally what we can see here is this structure which I have lifted up here. Guess what this is? This is the isophagus, the thoracic isophagus. It is in the posterior mediastinum. It starts from the superior mediastinum here. You can see it here. And then it goes from the superior to the posterior mediastinum. This does not have any cirrhosa. This was only covered by endothoracic fascia, which has been removed here. And that endothoracic fascia had the perisophageal vessels, perisophageal veins, and the parisophageal lymph nodes, which have all been removed. That is the problem. If the thoracic isophagus ruptures, it can produce very serious condition known as mediastinitis. The rupture of the thoracic isophagus because there is no cirrhosa to protect the thoracic isophagus. These are some of the remnants of the fascia which I am cutting just now. The next structure which I will draw your attention to is this vein that you see here. I am tracing with my instrument. This blueish colored structure that you see here. Guess what this is? This is the azygous vein. The azygous vein enters from the abdomen through the hiatus of the azygous vein. It is the same hiatus as the aorta, and then it becomes abdominal. And as it goes up, you can see it is receiving these veins. These are the posterior intercostal veins, and they are all draining into the azygous vein. And they are clearly visible here, and they are thrombosed. And if you feel it here, I can feel the thrombosed. In this particular cadaver, the veins, all the veins have got lots of abnormalities including thrombosis, which I shall allude to just a little later. To continue, the azygous vein, as it goes up, it goes behind the principal bronchus, which has been removed here, and you can see it is making an arch forward. We can clearly see that. This is called the arch of the azygous vein. It hooks forward, and it opens into the superior vena keva. So you are going to ask me, where is the superior vena keva? I will show it to you just in a little while. So this is the next structure that we see in the medias terrum. So what all we have seen till now? We have seen the ascending aorta, arch of the aorta, descending aorta. We have seen the trachea. We have seen the trachea and its bifurcation. We have seen the esophagus. We have seen the azygous vein. What we could not find in this particular cadaver was the thoracic duct. Quite often the thoracic duct is not visible, and in this particular cadaver, it was very small atrophied, and it was not clearly discernible. Having shown you that, I will show you a few other structures, which were the normalities in this particular cadaver. First, take a look at this venous structure here. We notice that this is a venous structure, because I can put my instrument here. This is the endothelium of the vein, and you can see my instrument has gone in. You can see this other end. My instrument has gone in here. If I trace it distally, you will find that my instrument goes in through another structure here. This lower portion here, if you focus the camera, you will see this lower portion here. This is the inferior vena cava. We just entered the abdomen through the cable hiatus. After that, the inferior vena cava is technically supposed to open into the right atria. I will show you the right atria, or what is left of it in the heart just now. We can see that this is continuous, and here it expands. This is actually the remnant of the right atria. Further up, this structure that we see here, this is the superior vena cava. Therefore, the superior vena cava and the inferior vena cava are almost in a straight continuous line with the remnant of the right atria intervening in between. This is the line which is the representative of the crystal terminalis in the right atria. The right atria was highly atrophied, and it was almost a part of the superior and inferior vena cava. Therefore, now we can understand that this particular vein that we see here, this is the right subclavian vein which is communicating with the internal superior vena cava which is aphelic which becomes continuous as the superior vena cava. So that is what we see in this particular cadaver. So this is one high abnormality. To bring you up to context, let me now take the heart itself and show you. So this is the heart. This was the orientation of the heart inside, and we can see that there's a big gap here. This was the location of the atria. And we can see this is the location of the atria ventricular orifice. So this was the location of the atrium. So from below was opening the inferior vena cava. From above is supposed to be the superior vena cava. It was located like this. This was how it was located. And again to show you the context, the heart was located here. And we can see this is the aorta. This is the aortic vestibule, and then it continues as the ascending aorta. And this is the pulmonary outflow, the infundibilum or the conus arteriosus. So you'll ask me where are the pulmonary vets, pulmonary arteries? I had to remove the pulmonary arteries because the pulmonary trunk was thrombose and quite disorganized so I had to remove it. But I retained the branches of the pulmonary artery in the lungs. So I shall bring the lungs into field of view right now. So this is one lung here. This is the right lung. And we can see this is the right pulmonary artery. It was here, like this. It was just below the arch of the aorta. So this is the right pulmonary artery. And we can see it is dividing into a superior and inferior just before it enters the high lung of the lung. Since we are already at the high lung of the lung, I will draw your attention to this structure here. This is the right principal bronchus. And further below, we can see these structures here. These are the pulmonary veins. There was no clear cut left atrium in this particular cadaver. That's why we could not see the clear left atrium. All the pulmonary veins drained into a very rudimentary kind of left atrium. So now I'm going to remove the right lung. Now I'll show you the same thing on the left lung. So this left lung was located like this. You can see only one fissure here. And we can see this is the left principal bronchus. You can feel the cartilage on the margins. And I can feel the tracheolus muscle behind. Then this is the left pulmonary artery. A single one entering into the left lung. And the lower most we can see this structure here. These were the pulmonary veins. And you can see two of them, one here and one here. So these pulmonary veins, two from the left and two from the right, are supposed to open into the left atrium. But we could not identify the left atrium. Therefore, this is the, come back to this structure here. This is the ligamentum arteriosum, which was connecting the arch of the outer to the bifurcation of the pulmonary trunk, which has been removed. But I showed you the pulmonary arteries in the two lungs. And just lateral to that we can see this is the recurrent aniginous nerve curbing around. Okay, let's come back. The next structure I will draw your attention to is this here. The left and right end has lift up the other side. What are these two structures? These are the phrenic nerves. The phrenic nerves that come from the neck C345 and they run on the surface of the pericardium. I have completely separated them and they disappeared into the diaphragm. As you can see, the left phrenic nerve is disappearing into the left dome of the diaphragm. Now the right phrenic nerve is disappearing into the right dome of the diaphragm. They also supply the pericardium with sensory branches.  So if there's any lesion of the pulmonary hyalum, like for example enlarged lymph nodes and they expand anteriorly, they can compromise the phrenic nerves and can produce hemi paralysis of the diaphragm. So these are the structures that we can see in this section of the medial sternum. Just to recap quickly, these are the phrenic nerves. This is the ascending arch of the aorta with the three branches from the arch and the descending thoracic aorta in the posterior medial sternum, the isophagus extending from the superior to the posterior medial sternum, the trachea with its bifurcation right in the left principal bronchus, the pulmonary trunk which has been, which was thrombosed and destroyed so therefore we had to remove it. But I showed you the pulmonary trunk arteries in the lung specimen. Then we have this vein here. This is the azagus vein on the right side which is closely adhering to the vertebral bodies and this is the arch of the azagus vein which was opening into the superior vena keva and we can see the posterior intercostal veins draining into the azagus vein. So these are the structures which I wanted to show you in this particular section of the cadaver. Thank you very much for watching ladies and gentlemen. Have a nice day. Dr. Sanyas Sanyas signing out please like and subscribe.