Excerpts

You are currently browsing the archive for the Excerpts category.

I always wonder how so many Americans got hooked on Oxycodone, the polite way to be a heroin addict. In his latest Financial Times column, our Canadian friend Douglas Coupland explains part of the problem: He developed bronchitis while touring the Southern United States and walked right into a medico on the make, readying a hook for him. An excerpt:

By Day Nine the bronchitis was morphing into pneumonia, and pretty much 50 per cent of my cognitive output was based around analysing my bodily sensations and trying to figure out if they were real or psychosomatic but, either way, the only way to unclasp The Hand at the back of my skull was to take another pill, except by then it wasn’t fun any more. Every moment of the day felt like I was about to step into a too-hot bathtub and, concomitantly, much of my cognitive function was by then being deployed to monitor my outward behaviour so as to not look like I was hiding The Hand on the back of my skull.

So I stopped. And I returned to Canada, where my doctor looked at my prescriptions, puzzled. First, my antibiotic: “Your Florida doctor prescribed you this? [Name drug; get lawsuit.] We used to give this to two-year-olds and, even then, for your body weight, this ought to have been at least three times a day at quadruple strength.”

“OK, but what about oxycodone? You have to admit, it did stop me from coughing.”

“Yes, but you also almost became addicted to a $900-a-pop drug.”

“True.”

“And just to be clear, you were deliberately underprescribed antibiotics to keep you from getting well so as to ensure that you’d keep going back for more visits and repeat oxy prescriptions. And your doctor was obviously in on some kind of racket with the pharmacist — all that coupon nonsense.”

“All true.”

Tags:

In a 1946 issue of Collier’s Weekly, journalist, publicist and space-travel enthusiast G. Edward Pendray penned “Next Stop the Moon,” a piece about establishing lunar settlements not to build some Gingrich-ian theme park but for permanent settlements and trade routes, using Columbus, not Disney, as his lodestar. An excerpt about financial considerations:

What Profit in Lunar Conquest?

Perhaps the foremost question now is: Why attempt a trip to the moon? What will the explorers be looking for?

When Columbus approached Queen Isabella about supporting his voyage to the New World, he had some rather tangible inducements to offer. There were the much-talked-of new trade routes for the spices and other products of the East. There was, of course, the possibility of new knowledge, prized by scholars. More appealing to sovereigns both then and now, there was also the promise of wealth and power.

The same inducements, though on a larger, more modern scale, beckon to the sponsors of a pioneering voyage across space’s vast unknowns. There may be no spices on the moon, but as we shall see, the moon is a key point in future trade routes with the planets. Who knows what 21st century equivalents of rare spices will ultimately be discovered on them?

For the scholars, there will certainly be much new knowledge in the special venture. In fact, discovery of new knowledge must begin even before the journey starts. Lots of it will be required to build a vehicle to take explorers across the void.

Wealth? Gold isn’t as much prized in these times as formerly, but uranium is now an even more precious metal and there are good—or at least interesting—arguments for the possibility of large deposits of uranium ind other radioactive metals on the moon.

Power? Our satellite, by its position, size and other advantages, is the natural watchman of the crossroads of space. Its gravitational attraction is so small that rockets only a little faster than the German V-2s could bombard the earth from the moon. With the aid of suitable guiding devices, such rockets could hit any city on the globe with devastating effect. A return attack from the earth would require rockets many times more powerful to carry the same pay load of destruction; and they would, moreover, have to be launched under much more adverse conditions for hitting a small target, such as the moon colony.

So far as sovereign power is concerned, therefore, control of the moon in the interplanetary world of the atomic future could mean military control of our whole portion of the solar system. Its dominance could include not only the earth but also Mars and Venus, the two other possibly habitable planets.

Whether permanent colonies could be founded on the moon might depend on whether uranium or other practical sources of atomic energy are discovered. On the earth, uranium seems to be concentrated mostly in the outer crust. The moon, some astronomers believe, was once a part of that crust, having been thrown into space out of the pit where the Pacific Ocean now rolls, during a violent paroxysm in the earlier history of our globe.

It is possible, therefore, that our satellite, being composed entirely of earth’s crustal materials, may be relatively rich in uranium. Should this turn out to be a fact, it would be simple to construct reacting atomic “piles” on the moon like those of the Manhattan Project, only bigger. These could produce heat for melting lunar sand into thick glass slabs, which would be employed for constructing an airtight roof over a crevice or one of the small craters. Atomic piles could furnish power to heat, light and aircondition a small city in such a sheltered place. The power might even enable chemists to extract oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen from lunar minerals to create a water supply and an adequate atmosphere in the domed city.

Obviously establishing a moon colony will take some doing. It will not be accomplished by the first rocket ship to visit the premises. There will have to be at least four stages to the process of conquering the moon—each step probably consisting of several abortive trials before attaining success. Assuming rockets capable of shooting away from the earth, the four stages may be these:

1. The Target Shots. Unmanned instrument-carrying rockets will be sent first, to test out flight calculations and controls. They will carry self-operating radio-equipped instruments to provide preliminary information about the range of temperatures, radiation, gravitational influences and other conditions to be encountered on the journey and on the lunar surface. These instrument-carrying rockets will not be equipped to return. They will land on the moon and transmit continuous automatic messages back to earth as long as their power supply lasts.

2. The Pilot Expedition will be the first manned space rocket. It will carry a crew of perhaps five, with all necessary equipment. Its mission: to spend a lunar day and night—28 earth days—on the moon, gathering all data possible in the allowed period, then returning to the earth. The crew probably will consist of a pilot-navigator, a copilot and mechanic engineer, a medical man, a physicist-chemist who is also a radio and radiation expert, and a geologist-mineralogist. These five will be selected not only for unusual skill and proficiency in their several technical fields, but also for resourcefulness, physical hardiness, courage and ability to observe.

3. The Moonhead Expedition will be the first small group of pioneers assigned to a settlement on the moon. Its size, make-up and equipment will depend on what is learned by the Pilot Expedition, but may consist of perhaps ten men, supplied at regular intervals by additional cargo rockets, either unmanned and robot-controlled, or staffed with small crews. Regular two-way communication and supply connections may be started in this way between the earth and moon.

4. Full Colonization, the final phase. It will begin after the Moonhead Expedition has established a firm foothold. The original small settlement will be increased in size and conditions established for fairly normal life, considering the natural difficulties. A few especially courageous women may join their men in this phase, though it is not to be expected that anybody will remain on the moon for protracted periods. Colonists will probably take regular turns of service, alternating with periods of rest and recuperation at home on earth.•

Tags:

Driverless cars have been a goal of some for at least 85 years, but as recently as 2007 they seemed a pipe dream to most. John Tierney of the New York Times, though, noted in that year the astounding progress the sector had made in short shrift, and assumed that autonomous cars wouldn’t remain futuristic frustrations like the flying kind. From Tierney’s prescient 2007 Times article:

As the baby boomers cruise into their golden years, I have good news for them — and for everyone else in danger of being run over by these aging drivers. The boomers will not be driving like Mr. Magoo. An electronic chauffeur will conduct them on expressways, drop them at the mall entrance and then go park their cars.

If you doubt this prediction, I don’t blame you. The self-driving car ranks right up there with the personal hovercraft as the futurist vision that never comes true. In 1969, Disney unveiled Herbie the Love Bug; in 1940, Popular Mechanics promised a car that would chauffeur you across America in a single day to visit Aunt Lillian.

At the 1939 World’s Fair, the crowds at the General Motors Futurama exhibit saw traffic speeding 100 miles per hour thanks to electronic help. ‘Safe distance between cars is maintained by automatic radio control,’ a voice explained as visitors looked down on the vast diorama of the World of Tomorrow, complete with hangars for dirigibles and landing decks for autogyros.

‘Does it seem strange? Unbelievable?’ the announcer intoned. ‘Remember, this is the world of 1960!’

O.K., so they were a little off on the date. But today, finally, those electronically spaced cars are on the highway. You can buy cars with ‘adaptive cruise-control’ that automatically slow down if the radar or laser detects you tailgating. Your car can warn you when you stray across lane markings, and these kinds of sensors are already being used experimentally in cars that drive themselves.

These smart cars still have their bugs, but engineers have made amazing progress the past several years. In 2004, when the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency held its first Grand Challenge for driverless cars, none made it more than seven miles. At Darpa’s next Grand Challenge, in 2005, five cars made it 132 miles to the finish. And then, last month, six cars completed a 60-mile course that was the grandest challenge yet because they had to deal with traffic along the way.

These empty cars drove themselves around an Air Force base in Southern California, finding parking spots, obeying stop signs, idling in traffic, yielding to other cars at intersections and merging into traffic at 30 m.p.h. There was one accident and a few near misses, but the cars’ engineers are so buoyed by the results that they’re hoping the next competition will be a high-speed race on a Grand Prix course.

‘Within five years, it’s totally feasible to build an autonomous car that will work reliably in several limited domains,’ says Sebastian Thrun, a computer scientist at Stanford and head of its racing team, which won the 2005 Darpa competition and finished second in last month’s. In five years he expects a car that could take over simple chores like breezing along an expressway, inching along in stop-and-go traffic, or parking in the lot at a mall or airport after dropping off the driver. In 20 years, Dr. Thrun figures half of new cars sold will offer drivers the option of turning over these chores to a computer, but he acknowledges that’s just an educated guess. While he doesn’t doubt cars will be able to drive themselves, he’s not sure how many humans will let them.•

Tags: ,

From “The Strange Life of ‘Lord’ Timothy Dexter,” a very amusing Priceonomics post by Zachary Crockett about America’s first eccentric on note, an illiterate and foolhardy man who fell ass backwards into vast wealth, which, along with a bogus title, could gain him no respectability:

A Princely Estate

Newburyport, in the late 1700s, was a supposedly idyllic town — a place where “rich and poor mingled”, and where the “population was not so large as to hide any individual, however odd or humble.” Though possessing only one of these traits, Timothy Dexter wasted no time in taking advantage of his arrival.

With his new fortune, Dexter purchased a healthy fleet of shipping vessels, a stable of brilliant cream colored horses, and a lavish coach adorned with his initials. Then, in grand fashion, he erected a “princely chateau” overlooking the sea — a chateau, it should be noted, that included the most lavish furnishings on the market, right down to its “tasteful and commodious outhouses.”

As recounted by a 19th century historian, Dexter then hired the “most intelligent and tasteful” artists of European architecture to carve and mount a series of more than 40 giant, wooden statues on his property, each depicting a great character in American lore: 

“…The tasteless owner, in his rage for notoriety, created rows of columns, fifteen high feet at least, on which to place colossal [statues] carved in wood. Directly in front of the door of the house, on a Roman arch of great beauty and taste, stood general Washington in his military garb. On his left was Jefferson; on his right, Adams. On the columns in the garden there were figures of indian chiefs, military generals, philosophers politicians, statesmen…and the goddesses of Fame and Liberty.”
Not to be outshined, Dexter then erected a final statue — one of himself. Beneath it, he boastfully painted an inscription — “I am the first in the East, the first in the West, and the greatest philosopher in the Western world” — this, coming from a man who’d neither contributed anything to the field of Philosophy nor ever read a single book on the subject.

At $2,000 a piece, the 40 statues cost Dexter twice as much as he’d paid for his entire estate — but with them, the outcast achieved his ultimate aim: to garner the public’s attention. “It made the bumpkins stare,” writes Samuel L. Knapp, “and gave the owner the greatest pleasure.” 

In time, Dexter began to garner to wrong kind of attention. His estate became so much of an aesthetic embarrassment that his wife soon abandoned ship to live elsewhere in the neighborhood; in her absence, Dexter’s son — a morose lad who, like his father, took no joy in learning — moved in. In short order, the home was turned into a “bagnio” (brothel) of sorts: long nights of drunken buffoonery ensued, in which women came and went, and the fine interiors (including curtains once owned by the Queen of France) were soon covered in “unseemly stains, offensive to sight and smell.”•

Tags: ,

Ray Kroc, the larger-than-life figure who turned the McDonald’s “hamburger stands” into a megapower after joining the company in the mid-’50s, just couldn’t help but make money. Here’s Kroc discussing his finances with Sports Illustrated in 1974, in an article tied to his purchase of the San Diego Padres: 

“Money is an automatic thing with me,” he said, adjusting his chair. “It’s like turning on a light switch. I take it for granted. What do I need it for? I’ve never desired a harem—anyway, I’m too old for one now. I’ve never wanted to own a racehorse or even a polo pony. What are you gonna do with money? I eat one steak at a time and I buy my clothes off the rack—can’t stand custom-made clothes. All money represents to me is pride of accomplishment.”

McDonald’s isn’t so fortunate these days, though, as the chain, which is terrible for animals, people and the environment, has faced strong market resistance the past two years. A brief downturn, perhaps, though poor management, strong competition and shifting tastes may mean a longer decline. From “When the Chips Are Down,” a new Economist article about the tarnish on the Golden Arches:

The biggest problem has been in America—by far McDonald’s largest market, where it has 14,200 of its 35,000 mostly franchised restaurants. In November its American like-for-like sales were down 4.6% on a year earlier. It had weathered the 2008-09 recession and its aftermath by attracting cash-strapped consumers looking for a cheap bite. But more recently it has been squeezed by competition from Burger King, revitalised under the management of a private-equity firm, from other fast-food joints such as Subway and Starbucks, and from the growing popularity of slightly more upmarket ‘fast casual’ outlets.

In response, McDonald’s has expanded its menu with all manner of wraps, salads and so on. Its American menu now has almost 200 items. This strains kitchen staff and annoys franchisees, who often have to buy new equipment. It may also deter customers. ‘McDonald’s stands for value, consistency and convenience,’ says Darren Tristano at Technomic, a restaurant-industry consultant, and it needs to stay true to this. Most diners want a Big Mac or a Quarter Pounder at a good price, served quickly. And, as company executives now acknowledge, its strategy of reeling in diners with a ‘Dollar Menu’ then trying to tempt them with pricier dishes is not working.

McDonald’s says it has got the message and is experimenting in some parts of America with a simpler menu: one type of Quarter Pounder with cheese rather than four; one Snack Wrap rather than three; and so on. However, this seems to run contrary to the build-your-burger strategy it is trying elsewhere, which expands the number of choices. That in turn is McDonald’s response to the popularity of ‘better burger’ chains, such as Shake Shack, which has just filed for a stockmarket flotation.

Some analysts think that McDonald’s should stop trying to replicate all its rivals’ offerings and go back to basics, offering a limited range of dishes at low prices, served freshly and quickly.•

Tags: ,

Two clips from articles about robotics, one from the Guardian about human augmentation in the form of exoskeletons and the other from the WSJ about social robotics.

_______________________________

From Samuel Gibbs at the Guardian:

The exoskeleton has been designed to help paraplegics gain mobility but also to help stroke victims learn how to walk again. It is controlled by buttons on a set of walking sticks, but also with the weight of the wearer.

Leaning forward in a natural walking stances while rocking side to side triggers the steps in a very human-like non-robotic way. The exoskeleton detects how much power a person is putting in and fills the shortfall to maintain stability, but also to help people build their strength where they have it.

‘Our technology started in the military, carrying heavy loads and with our partners Lockheed Martin we’re still doing that. But we melded technologies from people for athletics and people with paralysis to aid people with stroke to walk again,’ said Harding.

‘Now we’re looking at industrial applications – for construction crews holding heavy tools or working on overhead surfaces. That’s our next stage to attack. In five years you’ll see exoskeletons on the building site and on the medical side, someone with paralysis will be using one to get around a party.•

_______________________________

From Geoffrey A. Fowler at the WSJ:

Robots with social skills have captured imaginations going back decades. But we don’t have anything like a C-3PO from Star Wars or Rosie from The Jetsons in our homes yet.

That could start to change. At the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week, two pioneers in the field of social robotics said they are ready to begin selling personal robots. Their hope is that getting robots with basic capabilities like motion, video and voice recognition into homes will encourage developers to create the software that will make them feel like part of the family.

Aldebaran, founded by renowned roboticist Bruno Maisonnier, plans to begin selling its walking, talking 23-inch robot Nao to consumers in the next one to two years. Jibo, an 11-inch table-top robot with a swiveling body created by Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Cynthia Breazeal, will begin shipping to developers late this year and to homes in 2016.

‘It is now possible to build a social robot at a mass consumer price point,’ says Breazeal, whose company — also called Jibo — is selling the robot for $600.•

Tags: , ,

David Brooks of the New York Times, who has misunderstood the nature of meritocracy his whole life, proves it once again today with a ridiculous argument in his latest op-ed. Here’s the passage:

In most societies, there’s the adults’ table and there’s the kids’ table. The people who read Le Monde or the establishment organs are at the adults’ table. The jesters, the holy fools and people like Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are at the kids’ table. They’re not granted complete respectability, but they are heard because in their unguided missile manner, they sometimes say necessary things that no one else is saying.

Healthy societies, in other words, don’t suppress speech, but they do grant different standing to different sorts of people. Wise and considerate scholars are heard with high respect. Satirists are heard with bemused semirespect. Racists and anti-Semites are heard through a filter of opprobrium and disrespect. People who want to be heard attentively have to earn it through their conduct.

In Brooks’ worldview, Voltaire, Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain and Lenny Bruce are–and should be!–awarded only a modicum of respect, the children that they are for profanely speaking truth to abuses of power, whereas those who go through the motions of civility while (often) contributing less, should be rewarded more. In all fairness to Dr. IQ, it has worked for him his whole career, though I’ll bet the writing of those “holy fools” George Carlin and Terry Southern will be remembered much longer than Brooks’ scratchings.•

Tags:

In Gareth Cook’s New York Times Magazine profile of Princeton neuroscientist Sebastian Seung, who is trying to map the human brain with the aid of crowdsourcing online games, something akin to academia applied to Angry Birds, the writer makes a fundamental point about all attempts at cartography: charts and pictures are capable of obfuscating as well as elucidating. An excerpt:

In 1946, the Argentine man of letters Jorge Luis Borges wrote a short story about an empire, unnamed, that set out to construct a perfect map of its territory. A series of maps were drawn, only to be put aside in favor of more ambitious maps. Eventually, Borges wrote, ‘the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast map was Useless, and . . . delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters.’

With time, Borges’s cautionary parable has become even more relevant for the would-be cartographers of the world, Seung among them. Technological progress has always brought novel ways of seeing the natural world and thus new ways of mapping it. The telescope was what allowed Galileo to sketch, in his book The Starry Messenger, a first map of Jupiter’s largest moons. The invention of the microscope, sometime in the late 16th century, led to Robert Hooke’s famous depiction of a flea, its body armored and spiked, as well as the discovery of the cell, an alien world unto itself. Today the pace of invention and the raw power of technology are shocking: A Nobel Prize was awarded last fall for the creation of a microscope with a resolution so extreme that it seems to defy the physical constraints of light itself.

What has made the early 21st century a particularly giddy moment for scientific mapmakers, though, is the precipitous rise of information technology. Advances in computers have provided a cheap means to collect and analyze huge volumes of data, and Moore’s Law, which predicts regular doublings in computing power, has shown little sign of flagging. Just as important is the fact that machines can now do the grunt work of research automatically, handling samples, measuring and recording data. Set up a robotic system, feed the data to the cloud and the map will practically draw itself. It’s easy to forget Borges’s caution: The question is not whether a map can be made, but what insights it will bring. Will future generations cherish a cartographer’s work or shake their heads and deliver it up to the inclemencies?”

Tags: ,

Terraforming any planet, especially the one we’re standing on, seems fraught with consequences, many unintended, but some scientists maintain sci-fi dreams of geoengineering us out of climate change. From Brian Merchant at Vice:

“The scientists had whipped themselves into a frenzy. Gathered in a stuffy conference room in the bowels of a hotel in Berlin, scores of respected climate researchers, mostly middle-aged, mostly white, and mostly men, were arguing about a one-page document that had tentatively been christened the ‘Berlin Declaration.’ It proposed ground rules for conducting experiments to explore how we might artificially cool the Earth—planet hacking, basically.

It’s most commonly called ​geoengineering. Think Bond-villain-caliber schemes but with better intentions. It’s a highly controversial field that studies ideas like ​launching high-flying jets to dust the skies with sulfur in order to block out a small fraction of the solar rays entering the atmosphere, or sending a fleet of drones across the ocean to spray seawater into clouds to ​make them brighter and thus reflect more sunlight.

Those are two of the most discussed proposals for using technology to chill the planet and combat climate change, and each would ostensibly cost a few billion dollars a year—peanuts in the scheme of the global economy. We’re about to see the dawn of the first real-world experiments designed to test ideas like these, but first, the scientists wanted to agree on a code of ethics—how to move forward without alarming the public or breaking any laws.”

Tags:

Qatar is the richest state in the world based on per capita wealth, which is the main reason the tiny nation was chosen to host the 2022 World Cup, despite desert climate and dicey politics. When awarding the Cup or the Olympics, organizers can’t be too choosy, as few countries can or will expend the ton of money it takes to stage such a global event. Maik Grossekathöfer and Juan Moreno of Speigel interviewed Albert Speer, the German architect overseeing the building (and, yes, son of), as well as Friedbert Greif, managing partner and urban planner, and other principals. Two exchanges follow.

____________________________

Spiegel:

Your office has developed the master plan for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. The concept calls for 12 stadiums to be built in the desert, some of them within sight of each other. Each seat is to be cooled and the temperature at the center of the field is to be 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit), even if outside temperatures rise to 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit). And all this is to be built in a country that has as many residents as Augsburg, Germany (population: 276,542) Weren’t we just talking about sustainability?

Albert Speer:

But of course we were. Here, too, sustainability has been a priority from the very beginning.

Spiegel:

The insistence on an ecologically viable World Cup on the Arabian Peninsula doesn’t sound particularly credible. Just look at Abu Dhabi, which has announced its intention to build a new carbon neutral city — right next to a Formula One race track.

Albert Speer:

We intend to do things better and don’t want to be connected to projects like those in Sochi, for example. Qatar is planned so that most of it can be disassembled afterwards and that, in the end, is of a dimension that suits the country. The upper levels are modular and can be removed to make a total of 22 smaller football stadiums, which will then be given to developing countries after the World Cup. Individual modules can also be used for track and field stadiums with room for 5,000 people. And for the cooling, we have developed a concept that is based on solar power.

____________________________

Spiegel:

Still, one can wonder if it makes any sense at all for a World Cup to be held in a tiny desert country like Qatar.

Friedbert Greif:

What kind of a question is that? Of course it is legitimate for a country like Qatar, and thus, the Arab world, to get the World Cup. It is arrogant to believe that football belongs to us Europeans. Furthermore, I don’t believe that what the Russians are doing (eds. note: The 2018 World Cup is to be held in Russia) is any more efficient. Venues there are up to 2,400 kilometers (1,491 miles) from each other. The amount of resources and energy that are being wasted to bring spectators from A to B is crazy. Russia, in this regard, is the opposite extreme.

Spiegel:

Qatar isn’t a democracy, there is no labor union for immigrant workers and there have been numerous reports of people dying at the construction sites. In the past, the country was also a safe harbor for leaders of Islamist organizations.

Albert Speer:

I think it is fantastic that, with the help of media reports — and well in advance of the World Cup — people are taking a closer look. And that things are changing. Ahead of each of our projects, we ask: Is it acceptable? For many years we have had good business relations with Saudi Arabia. There is trust there, and people there listen to us as well. We really do have the feeling that we are doing something positive for the country and the people there. That is our benchmark. For Qatar as well.•

Tags: , , ,

Wired co-founder and techno-optimist Kevin Kelly can speak of the future in bold terms but still sound reasonable, which makes him a rarity in the field of futurists. Perhaps that’s why his AMAs are always so interesting. A few exchanges from his latest one at Reddit.

____________________________________

Question:

What are your thoughts on increased automation eventually putting people out of jobs? It seems like a pretty negative subject so I’d love to hear a positive spin on it!

Kevin Kelly:

Robots and AI will help us create more jobs for humans — if we want them. And one of those jobs for us will be to keep inventing new jobs for the AIs and robots to take from us. We think of a new job we want, we do it for a while, then we teach robots how to do it. Then we make up something else.

Question:

That’s interesting. Is this a pattern you observed in the past?

Kevin Kelly:

Sure. We invented machines to take x-rays, then we invented x-ray diagnostic technicians which farmers 200 years ago would have not believed could be a job, and now we are giving those jobs to robot AIs.

____________________________________

Question:

If automation rendered most of the “bread and butter” work that you currently do obsolete, to the point you only need an hour or so a day to do all the things, what would you do with your sudden excess of spare time?

Kevin Kelly:

I would read more books. I would make more photographs. I would write more stuff that only I cared about. Mostly I would try and do more things that I felt only I could do. That takes a lot of messing around and wasting of time to discover.

____________________________________

Question:

What’s the future of the city? Are we going to continue upgrading our current megalopolises or will we construct new ones based on Arcological designs? If so, how will they look like and when do you think we’ll start seeing them?

Kevin Kelly: 

I doubt it. My prediction is that the rough shape and texture of a city in 100 years from now, or even 200, will roughly be similar to now. What will be different are the communications and relationships in that city.

____________________________________

Question:

What near term (5-10 year horizon) technology are you most excited about and foresee having a big impact on people’s lives?

Kevin Kelly: 

I think commercial, cheap, ubiquitous, boring AI delivered as a utility service (like web hosting) will be the defining disruptive technology in the near future. The more I hear about recent improvements, the more I feel we are near a 20 year run of constant and meaningful results. Most of the consequences are not going to be Her, but invisible benefits.

____________________________________

Question:

What do you think of Dr. Nick Bostrom’s work in Existential Risk Reduction at the Future of Humanity Institute? Should it be global priority as his paper states?

Kevin Kelly:

I think it is worth some attention, but I think other existential risks such as an asteroid impact or drastic climate change are worth more energy.

____________________________________

Question:

What do you think will happen first, intelligent live elsewhere will contact us or we will contact intelligent life elsewhere?

Kevin Kelly:

Neither. First we will make artificial aliens by making AIs on Earth. These other minds that will think differently than us, and may be conscious differently than us, and they will offer some (but by no means all) of the same benefits of contacting an ET.

____________________________________

Question:

Do you believe the Singularity is coming? What do you say to those who maintain it’s simply a techie version of the Rapture, i.e. an apocalypse beyond which we no longer have to think about?

Kevin Kelly:

I don’t believe in the Strong/Hard version of the Singularity: AIs that self-create into a god-like power that can give us immortality. I do believe in the Weak/Soft version that humanity and machines merge into something that we can’t see or understand right now.

____________________________________

Question:

What’s the best drug experience you have had?

Kevin Kelly:

I really only have had one “drug” experience. I was a non drug taking hippie. On my 50th birthday I took LSD for the first and only time. I saw God. Have not done any since.•

Tags:

In the 1981 documentary The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, Richard Feynman discussed his role as a Ph.D. candidate working, beginning in 1943, for the Manhattan Project, a job he viewed at first as burden, then duty, then fun, then burden all over again. He was a deeply moral man who believed in retrospect that he hadn’t ultimately acted with much depth or morality, very troubled that he continued to work on the mission even after Germany surrendered. Feynman’s words:

It was a completely different kind of a thing. It would mean that I would have to stop the research in what I was doing, which was my life’s desire, to do this, which I felt I should do to protect civilization, if you want, okay? So that was what I had to debate with myself. My first reaction was that I didn’t want to get interrupted from my normal work to do this odd job. There was also the problem–of course, any moral thing involving war I didn’t want much to do about that. It kind of scared me when I realized what the weapon would be, and that since it might be possible, there was nothing that indicated that if we could do it that they couldn’t do it, therefore it was very important to try to cooperate.

With regard to moral questions, I do have something I would like to say about it, because the original reason to start the project, which I had, was that the Germans were a danger, which started me off on a process of action which was to be the first to develop this system at Princeton and then at Los Alamos, to try make the bomb work, all kinds of attempts at redesign to make it a worse bomb or whatever, and so on…and all of us working at this time to see if we could make it go. And so it was a project on which we all worked very, very hard and all cooperating together. With any project like that you continue to work to try to get success, having decided to do it. But what I did immorally, I would say, was not to remember the reason I said I was doing it, so that when the reason changed, which was that Germany was defeated, not the single thought came to my mind at all about that–that that meant that I had to reconsider doing this. I simply didn’t think, okay?

Only reaction I had, maybe I was blinded by my own reaction, was a very considerable elation and excitement. There were parties, and people got drunk, and it would make a tremendously interesting contrast of what was going on in Los Alamos as the same time as what was going on in Hiroshima. I was involved with this happy thing and also drinking, drunk, playing drums sitting on the hood–a bonnet–of a jeep, and playing drums, excitement running all over Los Alamos, at the same time as the people were dying and struggling at Hiroshima. 

I had a very strong reaction after the war of a peculiar nature…it may be just from the bomb itself or it may be from some other psychological reasons, I had just lost my wife or something. But I remember being in New York with my mother in a restaurant right after, immediately after, and thinking about New York, and I knew how big the bomb in Hiroshima was, how big an area it covered, and so on, and I realized from where we were–I don’t know, 59th Street–to drop one at 34th Street, and that would spread all the way out and all these people would be killed and all these things would be killed, and that wasn’t the only one bomb available but it was easy to continue to make them and therefore that things were sort of doomed, because already it appeared to me, earlier than to others who were more optimistic, that international relations and the way people were behaving was no different than it had ever been before, and that it was just going to go out the same way as any other thing, and I was sure it was going to be therefore used very soon. So, I felt very uncomfortable and I thought, really believed, that it was silly…I would see people building a bridge and I would say, “They don’t understand.” I really believed that it was senseless to make anything because it would all be destroyed anyway soon, that they didn’t understand that, and I had this very strange view of any construction I would see. I always thought, How foolish they are to try to make something. So I was really in a kind of depressive condition.•

 

Tags:

Via the beautiful Browser, I came across “What to Eat After the Apocalypse,” Yvonne Bang’s Nautilus interview with Adam Pearce, co-author of Feeding Everyone No Matter What, which plans the menu for Armageddon. One exchange:

Question:

So what would we eat after the sky goes dark?

Adam Pearce:

There are many things that you can eat that we don’t normally consider food, particularly in the west. Leaves are one of them. You can eat leaves. You just have to be careful about how you do it. Leaves are high in fiber and we can’t digest any more than half of it, but if you chew the leaves and spit out the fiber you can draw out nutrients from it. Or you can make teas.

Tea in particular is a relatively easy one to do. Pine needle tea has more than 100 percent of the vitamin C of orange juice. One could actually make pine needle tea from the pine tree in your backyard and get your vitamin C for the day. It’s actually a really good superfood. And in some cultures, like [South] Korea, they even have pop that is flavored with pine. That’s their drink.

The other obvious one is insects. The conversion ratios between biomass and food in insects is much better than say, in cows. Beef production is unbelievably inefficient the way that we do it. In the west, we definitely turn our noses up at eating insects. But there are actually quite a few people throughout the world that eat insects today and, for feeding everyone, it is a very obvious solution. It’s not like you have to eat insects raw. You would never know the difference between say, a sausage patty, a veggie sausage patty, and an insect sausage patty. It’s all the same! It’s just the spices. Let the food scientists go crazy on it.”

Tags: ,

The surest sign of sanity and civilization is the ability to take a joke without responding in violence. 

Humor was declared dead, at least by some, in the wake of 9/11. But it can’t die and won’t be killed.

Below is a perfect summation by Dutch political cartoonist Ruben L. Oppenheimer of today’s disgraceful terrorist attack on the Charlie Hebdo staff.

Tags:

One of the best books I read during 2014 was Lee Billings’ Five Billion Years of Solitude, a volume both extremely heady and deeply moving. It tells the story of the quest for exoplanets which resemble Earth, places which could possibly provide refuge for us when our mother planet finally dies. Even if we never manage to leave our solar system, just the intellectual odyssey itself is fascinating. From “Searching for Pale Blue Dots,” an Economist article about other-Earth discussions at this week’s American Astronomical Society meeting:

“IN 1990 Voyager took a photograph of Earth that was striking precisely because it showed so little. The spacecraft was six billion kilometres away at the time and the image it sent back was memorably described by Carl Sagan as a ‘pale blue dot,’ Imagine, then, how pale such a dot would be if the planet in the picture were 113,000 billion kilometres away. Yet this is the distance to the nearest confirmed exoplanet—a planet orbiting a star other than the sun. That gives some idea of the task faced by those who study these bodies. Only in the most special of circumstances can they actually see their quarry. Mostly, they have to work with indirect measurements, like watching for slight dips in the intensity of a star’s light when a planet passes in front of it, a phenomenon known as a transit.

But if indirect observation is all that is on offer, then astronomers must make the best of it. And, as numerous presentations to a meeting of the American Astronomical Society held in Seattle this week show, they have both done so, and have plans to do better in future.

The most successful planet-hunting mission so far has been Kepler, a satellite launched in 2009 by NASA, America’s space agency, which collected data using the transit method until 2013, when a mechanical failure disabled it. It has since been revived, but has only recently begun transmitting data. However, combing of the data it collected in its first incarnation continues, and Douglas Caldwell of the SETI Institute, in Mountain View, California, who is one of the mission’s chief scientists, announced to the meeting the discovery of eight new planets. Three of these lie in their solar systems’ habitable zones (that is, they are at a distance from their parent stars which makes them warm enough for water on their surfaces to be liquid, but cool enough for it not to be steam). One of these three, known as Kepler 438b, is thought particularly Earthlike. It is a bit bigger and a bit warmer than Earth, but is probably rocky. It is therefore likely to be the subject of intense future scrutiny.”

Tags: ,

Ayatollah Khomeini’s prayers for a massive army of young men to combat Iraq were answered all too well. His urging for fertile females to reproduce with no pregnant pauses spurred Iran’s population to swell to 50 million by 1986. Once the war ended, what was the country to do with all those working-age people who needed jobs, food and clean water? An excerpt follows from Alan Weisman’s Countdown, republished at Matter, which looks at family-planning efforts inside a theocracy.

__________________________________

Secret meetings commenced with the Supreme Leader to discuss the population blessing that was now a population crisis. Years later, demographer and population historian Abbasi-Shavazi would interview the 1987 planning and budget director, and learn that he had met with the president’s cabinet and explained what excessive human numbers portended for the nation’s future. To feed, educate, house, and employ everyone would far outstrip their capacity, as Iran was exhausted and nearly bankrupt. There were so many children that primary schools had to move from double to triple shifts. The planning and budget director and the minister of health presented an initiative to reverse demographic course and institute a nationwide family-planning campaign. It was approved by a single vote.

A month after the August 1988 ceasefire finally ended the war, Iran’s religious leaders, demographers, budget experts, and health minister gathered for a summit conference on population in the eastern city of Mashhad, one of holiest cities for the world’s Shi’ite Muslims, whose name means “place of martyrdom.” The weighty symbolism was clear.

“The report of the demographers and budget officers was given to Khomeini,” Dr. Shamshiri recalls. The economic prognosis for their overpopulated nation must have been very dire, given the Ayatollah’s contempt for economists, whom he often referred to as donkeys.

“After he heard it, he said, ‘Do what is necessary.’ ”

It meant convincing 50 million Iranians of the opposite of what they’d heard for the past eight years: that their patriotic duty was to be forcibly fruitful. Now, a new slogan was strung from banners, repeated on billboards, plastered on walls, broadcast on television, and preached at Friday prayers by the same mullahs who once enjoined them to produce a great Islamic generation by making more babies:

One is good. Two is enough.

The next year, 1989, Imam Khomeini died. The same prime minister who had hailed fertility rates approaching nine children per woman as God-sent now launched a new national family-planning program. Unlike China, the decision of how many was left to the parents. No law forbade them from having ten if they chose. But no one did. Instead, what happened next was the most stunning reversal of population growth in human history. Twelve years later, the Iranian minister of health would accept the United Nations Population Award for the most enlightened and successful approach to family planning the world had ever seen.

If it all was voluntary, how did Iran do it?•

Tags: ,

The future occasionally crash-lands into our lives, but usually it goes far easier on the brakes. The latter, more-prosaic scenario is what Alex Davies of Wired encountered when he took the wheel gave up the wheel of Audi’s highway-ready driverless vehicle. An excerpt:

“If this A7, nicknamed Jack, wasn’t advertising ‘Audi piloted driving’ on its side, you’d never know it wasn’t just another German sedan cruising down the 5. All the gadgetry that keeps it squarely centered in its lane at precisely the speed you select is discretely incorporated into the car. It’s top-end stuff, too: six radars, three cameras, and two light detection and ranging (LIDAR) units. The computers that allow the car to analyze the road, choose the optimal path and stick to it fit neatly in the trunk. It’s remarkably smooth, maintaining a safe following distance, making smooth lane changes, and politely moving to the left to pass slower vehicles controlled by carbon-based life forms. It’s so sophisticated that I never felt anything unusual, and in fact the car is designed to reassure you that you need only grab the wheel or tap the brake to immediately resume control.

And that’s the most remarkable thing about Audi’s robo-car: All that tech recedes into the background. Driving this car is mundane, almost boring.”

Tags:

There’s currently an online auction for a lot of three unopened boxes of sports-themed Champ prophylactics from 1950. The baseball figure is clearly supposed to be Ted Williams and the boxer Joe Louis, though neither was apparently a spokesperson for the condom company nor gave their permission for the cover design bearing their likenesses. Oddly, it was after his death when Williams’ head needed protection the most. Now I’m going to hell. A description of the Teddy Ballgame art from Baseball Reliquary:

This curiosity demonstrates the weird and wacky confluence of popular culture, business entrepreneurship, and baseball hero worship — a 1950s era unopened black-market pack of prophylactics whose colorful image bears an extraordinary likeness to that of the Splendid Splinter himself, Ted Williams.•

 

Tags: ,

All dogs may go to heaven–even if the supposed Fun Pope promise was apocryphal–but what of cows and pigs and chickens?

I’ve mentioned before that free-range chicken doesn’t sound particularly ethical to me. If I were a chicken, my main objection to the slaughterhouse would not be the accommodations. And almost all those who eat poultry would jail others who organize cockfights, which isn’t sensible; both are done for enjoyment, not necessity. From Robert Pogue Harrison’s NYRB post “Our Animal Hell“:

“Whether or not one believes that the Judeo-Christian God exists, there is much to ponder in what Pope Francis reportedly told a distraught boy whose dog had died. According to The New York Times, Francis assured him that he would be reunited with his pet ‘in the eternity of Christ’ and—in the spirit of his papal namesake—declared that ‘Paradise is open to all of God’s creatures.’ Since we are a society that loves our dogs as much as we love God, the American media focused almost exclusively on the statement’s implications for canine pets; but a broader, far darker import lurks at the heart of the Pope’s words.

The Pope spoke not of dogs but of all of God’s creatures. Where does that leave humankind? To call us a species among others is both correct and misleading, for whether by divine design or nature’s random ways, Homo sapiens has extended its dominion over everything that walks, crawls, swims, or flies. This makes us a singular, unearthly kind of creature. From the extinctions we cause, to the alteration and destruction of animal habitats, to the daily mass slaughters that feed our collective Cerberus-like appetite for meat, poultry, and fish, our species terrorizes the animal world in ways that could only offend, if not outrage, a God who loves his creatures enough to open the prospect of heaven to them.

Whether intentionally or unintentionally, the Pope’s declaration reminds us of something that weighs heavily on humankind. Most of the time, we are adept at blocking out this ‘species guilt,’ as I would call it. Aren’t we more humane than our ancestors? Don’t we love animals? Don’t we have laws against animal cruelty? Yes, we do. But as Nicholas Kristof put it in a recent column in The New York Times: ‘Torture a single chicken and you risk arrest. Abuse hundreds of thousands of chickens for their entire lives? That’s agribusiness.’ I.e., that’s what stocks our supermarkets with happy ‘cage free’ chickens.

We like to think of ourselves as the stewards or even saviors of nature, yet the fact of the matter is, for the animal world at large, the human race represents nothing less than a natural disaster.”

It’s been a high-speed chase for a decade now, from the embarrassment of the 2004 DARPA Grand Challenge to Big Auto seeing a driverless horizon. Unless everyone in the sector has succumbed to a collective delusion, this technology, or at least an impressive portion of it, will be available sooner than later. From a report by Molly Wood of the New York Times on the autonomous dream on display at this week’s Consumer Electronics Show:

“No more dancing around it: The major automakers now see a world of completely self-driving cars.

On Monday at the International Consumer Electronics Show, the huge technology industry event in Las Vegas, Dieter Zetsche, the head of Mercedes-Benz cars and chairman of of Daimler AG, focused most of his keynote address on unveiling a fully autonomous prototype vehicle.

Dr. Zetsche described the autonomous car of the future as a sort of luxury ‘carriage’ that could provide a peaceful, relaxing oasis for riders. It was festooned with touch screens and featured a sort of floating control panel that would let any rider take control of the car.

Raj Nair, the chief technical officer and global product chief at Ford, said at the International CES that he expected some manufacturer to introduce a completely autonomous vehicle — one that requires zero human intervention — within five years.”

Tags: , ,

A little more from Spiegel about the Islamic State, a terrorist group that is also a crime organization, as pretty much all terrorist groups are. Markus Dettmer and Jörg Schindler interview terror expert Louise Shelley about the bankrolling methods of the beheaders. An excerpt:

Spiegel:

In your new book, Dirty Entanglements: Corruption, Crime and Terrorism, you write that every terrorist success story starts like the establishment of a successful business: with the collection of seed money. In al-Qaida’s case, the money originated from Osama bin Laden’s fortune. Where does Islamic State’s seed money come from?

Louise Shelley:

From two sources. The antecedents of IS received donations from the Gulf States, but now it has smaller, new contributions from many locales. The smuggling routes they are now using were also used during the post-invasion period for low-level smuggling — of cigarettes and pornography.

Spiegel:

Pornography?

Louise Shelley:

Yes, I was also surprised that there was such trade in the region now under IS control. Now, IS is financing itself largely through the oil trade, but also many other activities. It is a diversified criminal operation.

Spiegel:

What sort of activities?

Louise Shelley:

With looted art from the occupied territories, for example. It is sold via Ebay, at art fairs or in premium antiquarian shops in Europe. But that does not really bring in a lot of money because the market is limited. The terrorists think quite broadly about their sources of financial support and the number of potential customers for expensive items is small. IS taxes trade, they make money from the passports sold by foreign fighters, they sell mobile phones, trade in illicit cigarettes and engage in kidnapping as well as human smuggling and trafficking. And, of course, the arms trade. Other terrorist groups make money selling pirated CDs and DVDs. Counterfeit goods, forged passports and documents, the illicit wildlife trade and drugs earn a lot for terrorist groups.”

Tags: , ,

The more appropriate name for a selfie stick, I think, is “dipstick,” but I am an awful man. The great David Carr of the New York Times has noticed the ubiquity of these collapsible self-admiration apparatuses, realizing that while old media expends great time and effort fashioning fabulous products, many prefer quick-fix ephemera, content to skip the traditional content and instead contribute to the world’s exponentially expanding high school yearbook, our new-age bible. From Carr:

“Selfies are hardly new, but the incremental improvement in technology of putting a phone on a stick — a curiously analog fix that Time magazine listed as one of the best inventions of 2014 along with something called the ‘high-beta fusion reactor’ — suggests that the séance with the self is only going to grow. (Selfie sticks are often used to shoot from above, which any self-respecting selfie auteur will tell you is the most flattering angle.)

There are now vast, automated networks to harvest all that narcissism, along with lots of personal data, creating extensive troves of user-generated content. The tendency to listen to the holy music of the self is reflected in the abundance of messaging and self-publishing services — Vine, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Instagram, Apple’s new voice messaging and the rest — all of which pose a profound challenge for media companies. Most media outfits are in the business of one-to-many, creating single pieces of text, images or audio meant to be shared by the masses.

But most sharing does not involve traditional media companies.”

Industrialist Elon Musk wants to begin colonizing Mars by 2030, while writer Ken Kalfus thinks we should take a more cautious approach, sending unmanned probes to Alpha Centauri, using the time between blast-off and “landing” in 500 years or so to work on Earth’s problems. Only one of these people has billions of dollars and the ability to raise many more billions, which may preclude any in-depth debate on our path forward. Musk discussed his mission to Mars and other subjects in a Reddit AMA, the day before SpaceX scrubbed its Falcon 9 attempt to land a rocket on a barge. A few exchanges follow.

___________________________

Question:

Could you please clarify what the Mars Colonial Transporter actually is? Is it a crew module like Dragon, a launch vehicle like Falcon, or a mix of both? Does it have inflatable components? Is MCT just a codename?

Elon Musk:

The Mars transport system will be a completely new architecture. Am hoping to present that towards the end of this year. Good thing we didn’t do it sooner, as we have learned a huge amount from Falcon and Dragon.

___________________________

Question:

SpaceX’s current strategy revolves mostly around old style Rockets, even if they are now approaching complete reusability (Grasshopper rocks). Has SpaceX looked into Hybrid craft like the SABRE program happening in the UK, or look into the possibility of a space elevator (Even at a thought experiment stage) in the way that Google and NASA have done?

Elon Musk:

If you want to get to orbit or beyond, go with pure rockets. It is not like Von Braun and Korolev didn’t know about airplanes and they were really smart dudes.

___________________________

Question:

How does SpaceX plan to address the limitations and contribute to the advancement of current spacesuit technology to best serve humans enroute and on the surface of Mars? You mentioned in 2013 that there’d be an update to SpaceX’s “spacesuit project” soon – how is it coming along?

Elon Musk:

Our spacesuit design is finally coming together and will also be unveiled later this year. We are putting a lot of effort into design esthetics, not just utility. It needs to both look like a 21st century spacesuit and work well. Really difficult to achieve both.

___________________________

Question:

How will you secure the first stage of the Falcon 9 to the barge when it lands? Gravity or some mechanism?

Elon Musk:

Mostly gravity. The center of gravity is pretty low for the booster, as all the engines and residual propellant is at the bottom. We are going to weld steel shoes over the landing feet as a precautionary measure.

___________________________

Question:

Previously, you’ve stated that you estimate a 50% probability of success with the attempted landing on the automated spaceport drone ship tomorrow. Can you discuss the factors that were considered to make that estimation?

Elon Musk:

I pretty much made that up. I have no idea :)

Tags:

Walter Winchell died twice, and there was plenty of room at the second funeral.

The first demise was the radio and newspaper gossip’s public persona, which all but vanished in his later life, when he remarkably outlived what had been an outsize fame, unrivaled in thirties and forties American media. A figure of immense power in his heyday, Winchell was vicious and vindictive, often feared and seldom loved, the inspiration for the seedy and cynical J.J. Hunsecker in Sweet Smell of Success. When journalism matured in the 1960s, when college-educated industry professionals began saying “ellipsis” rather than “dot dot dot,” and Winchell had no power left, people were finally able to turn away from him, and turn they did. By the time he passed away in the corporeal sense in 1972, he was already buried

From his anachronistic fedora to his inky black heart, Matt Drudge dreamed of being another Winchell, one for a new media age, and for a few years he pulled off a very lower-case approximation. But the idea that Drudge or O’Reilly or anyone has ever again had anything near Winchell’s sway would be akin to suggesting that Mayor Bill de Blasio can part New York City any way he wishes, the way Robert Moses did. Such concentrated power in metropolitan affairs and media is a thing of the past, and we’re the better for it. 

Prior to writing about Frank SerpicoJoseph Valachi and Sammy “The Bull” Gravano, journalist Peter Maas profiled the gossip in the early stages of his decline phase for Collier’s with the 1956 article “Prowling the Night Beat with Walter Winchell.” The opening:

In all the kaleidoscopic years from bootleg liquor to the hydrogen bomb, few figures have been more consistently or controversially both creator and chronicler of news than a fifty-nine-year-old former song-and-dance man named Walter Winchell. Winchell, whose schooling terminated in the sixth grade, has seen his contributions to the language (infanticipating, Chicagorilla) duly noted by H. L. Mencken and included in freshman English textbooks. As the originator of the modem gossip column, he upended journalistic technique. His syndicated commentaries built him a huge national audience, later multiplied by his staccato Sunday-night (215 words a minute) newscasts. This fall he has added another dimension to a phenomenal career as the star of his own TV variety show over NBC.

Winchell’s waking hours, once merely frantic, now approach final chaos. His nightly prowlings about Manhattan are punctuated by the conversational delivery of an animated typewriter. Shortly after seven one recent evening, he strode briskly up Broadway (“the Sappian Way”) to Lindy’s Restaurant, fortified himself against the hours ahead with a chocolate soda, poetically signed a little girl’s menu (“Bread is food / Water is drink / An autograph is just some ink”), described to early dinner arrivals a five-alarm fire (“Oh, did you miss the action!”), acknowledged (“Hello”) the greeting of a former member of Murder, Inc., and an hour later abruptly left with a dozen people yet vying for his ear.

Backstage at a nearby theater, he asked Sammy Davis, Jr., to appear on his TV show, commented on his recent split with Stork Club owner Sherman Billingsley (“I think I’ll open Winchell’s Bar and Grill across the street”), dropped into a Broadway music shop as he regularly does to listen to both sides of a Roberta Sherwood record (“She doesn’t want to open an engagement without me”), paused outside to talk to an elderly lady (“1 know you, you’re Mrs. America!”) and then said, as he invariably does at some point in the night, “Let’s go chase the burglars.”

Thus, at ten o’clock, he rolled forth in his car (complete with short-wave receiver) to answer all police and fire calls within striking distance. Along with the mambo, this is his principal mode of relaxation. Most police officers know him by sight now and, if not, his standard introduction, “My name’s Winchell; I’m a reporter,” usually suffices.

At a Signal 30 (crime of violence) this night he arrived simultaneously with the police and pistol in hand (“What am I doing this for? I’m fiftynine years old”) gave chase to a hoodlum—who eventually escaped. Soon thereafter, he attended a political reception where he lectured Tammany bigwig Carmine De Sapio on the shortcomings of the Truman administration. He then left to go to a night club, El Morocco, hastily munched a steak sandwich, whirled through several mambos with Elizabeth Taylor (when she said it was her first dance in five years, he told her, “That’s why marriages break up” ) and invited Deborah Kerr and a 20th Century-Fox executive to ride in the car. Upon depositing Miss Kerr at her hotel at 4:00 A.M., he invited her to appear on his TV show. When 20th Century demurred on the grounds of conflicting films, he later noted, “Now I’ll have to give raves to her next three pictures, good or bad. Because they’ll be saying, watch him pan us.”

Winchell resumed the chase of further police calls until, at dawn, he found himself present at an emergency birth in a tenement house. It was the first he had ever seen and he was moved to report it as a society item: “A bundle of Boy (her 2d) for Mrs. Arcario Otero of W. 22d St. Happy Baby!”

Afterward, he stopped for a cup of cafeteria hot chocolate (“It gives me energy”) and returned to his St. Morilz Hotel duplex apartment. He went directly to his offlce on the second floor, equipped with a bed, an ancient table-model typewriter and heavy beige curtains, ever drawn against the sun. There, he began his next day’s column. He finished the column at 9:0 0 A.M. Then he fell asleep.

WINCHELL APPLIES HIMSELF with equal vehemence to the fate of a Broadway play or the state of the nation. Following a recent newscast, he pointed to a soapbox orator on the street and cracked, “I’m just like him. I’m a rabble rouser too. But I’ve got syndication and a mike.” 

He sees himself first as a reporter. His critics insist that he is irresponsible, and refer to him as “Little Boy Peep.” When he hears such charges. he usually reacts with the disdain of a man who has just heard the cry, “Break up the Yankees!” Although Winchell’s temper flares easily and he is continually on edge, rival columnists, except Ed Sullivan, leave him relatively unruffled and he says of them, “They print it; / make it public.”

He has no leg men as such but a number of contacts supply material they know is of specific interest to him. Otherwise, he collects his items in person or culls them from his immense daily mail. His column is currently carried by 165 papers with an audience estimated at 25,000,000. When the editors of a news weekly asked Winchell how he arrived at this figure, he told them, “I read it in your magazine.” 

Winchell first got the idea for his column when, still a vaudevillian. he produced a gossipy mimeographed sheet about backstage goings on and pinned it to bulletin boards under the heading, “Daily Newsense.” Several years later on the New York Evening Graphic (a tabloid which on a dull day would have a reporter shoot up the editor’s office, call the cops and headline: “Gangland Tries to Intimidate Graphic”), he included a series of his tips, turned down by the city desk, in his regular drama column. By morning, he was the talk of the town. In 1929, Winchell was hired by Hearst’s New York Daily Mirror and immediately syndicated. The first of his regular Sunday-night newscasts began in 1932. They continue today over Mutual and are still preceded by tremendous personal tension. Winchell constantly, although futilely, admonishes himself: “Calm down!”

He is acutely conscious of his power. He is also privy to the enormous draw of gossip and often uses it as a lure to advance his own highly opinionated views on affairs of state and the world. In the 19.30s he shelved his previous disinterest in politics to, as he says, “help a man named F.D.R. win.” Soon after, he plunged with equal force into the international arena “because of two guys named Hitler and Mussolini.” Winchell currently regards himself in the forefront of the fight against Communism and, after a break in diplomatic relations with President Truman, is again a favored White House visitor. Politically, he regards himself as an Independent. “There aren’t any liberals left,” he says. “If there are, I’m one.” Scoffers deny this and charge Winchell is in over his head. They single out his violent defense of Senator Joseph McCarthy as a case in point. He angrily answers, “Who else was fighting the Commies? Name me one!”

Winchell’s volatile nature demands outlets. His cops-and-robbers exploits serve this end as well as giving him some notable scoops. His first such coup took place in 1932 when nightclub hostess Texas Guinan tipped him off that Vincent Coll, the then infamous Mad Dog Killer, was about to get his from rival mobsters. Winchell printed the item forthwith. Per prediction, Coll was mowed down some five hours later.

His most sensational exploit unfolded in 1939 after he had become a friend of FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover. Louis (Lepke) Buchaltcr, gangland’s high executioner, had been hunted for two years. He was America’s most wanted criminal and carried a $50,000 tag dead or alive. After a decision to surrender to the FBI, Buchalter’s problem was to get to Hoover alive. Winchell was chosen as go-between. For 20 frustrating days during August, he carried on blind negotiations that apparently led nowhere. Finally, Hoover taunted Winchell to his face (“Here he is, the biggest hotair artist in town”). But the next Sunday night on a deserted Fifth Avenue, Winchell was able to make a memorable introduction: “Mr. Hoover, Mr. Buchalter; Mr. Buchalter, Mr. Hoover.” As it turned out, Winchell lost his scoop; when he breathlessly telephoned his city desk he was brushed off with, “So what, Hitler’s just invaded Danzig.”

Winchell is a man of intense personal loyalties. His association with police and firemen during his nocturnal prowling led him to discover the inadequate death benefits provided their dependents. He promptly crusaded for the Bravest and Finest Fund to provide financial assistance (“The check gets there before the undertaker”). His closest friend was the late Damon Runyon, who rode with him nightly. Just before Runyon died from cancer of the throat, he told Winchell he hoped that one friend would remember him “once a year.” Four nights later, on Winchell’s newscast, he announced the Damon Runyon Cancer Fund. “I didn’t know what we’d get,” Winchell recalls. “Maybe fifty thousand, seventy-five tops.” To date, largely through his efforts, $11,500,000 has been raised, with no deducted expenses.

His feuds are equally violent. Although he once championed the Stork Club, he has soured on owner Sherman Billingsley (“I built the place up and III tear it down”). Winchell and Ed Sullivan are long-time foes. The bitterness was renewed when Sullivan publicly announced that Winchell was a “dead duck” after he lost his TV and radio newscasts with the American Broadcasting Company. One of Winchell’s prize possessions is an early letter from Sullivan expressing the hope he could return a Winchell favor with “something equally nice.” “I put it with all my other thank-you notes,” Winchell snaps, “in the ingrate file.”

Of show business, Winchell says, “I never left it.” He is almost universally regarded in the trade as a man whose nod of approbation will lift a hitherto obscure entertainer to stardom. Winchell’s willingness to do battle for a favored cause has produced some spectacular results. Several years ago, he took a unanimous critical flop, Hellzapoppin, under his wing and it wound up one of the eight musicals in Broadway history to run more than 1,000 performances. More recently, he has been plugging forty-three-year-old singer Roberta Sherwood, lifting her from $50 to $5,000 a week in six months.•

________________________________

Winchell in 1953, mocking Dorothy Parker among others.

Tags: ,

It still seems a stretch to me to use the words “Hyperloop” and “soon” in the same sentence, but the corporate structure of Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, the start-up intent upon realizing Elon Musk’s design, is at the very least interesting, staffed as it is with largely remote and unpaid (for now) permalancers. Of course, that just makes me more wary. From Steven Kotler at Singularity Hub:

“Musk himself said he was too busy to take on the project, but if other people wanted in on the cause, well, that was just fine with him. As it turns out, other people have taken him up on his offer—about 100 in total.

Meet Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, (HTT) a company that is not quite a company.

Using JumpStartFund, a crowdfunding and crowdsourcing hybrid service/model, wherein the very workers who are going to build the Hyperloop aren’t paid until the train turns a profit.

How is that possible? Simple, the workers don’t actually work for HTT, or not many of them. Most of them work day jobs at companies spread throughout the country—Boeing or SpaceX or NASA or Yahoo! or Salesforce or Airbus, to name but a few. HTT is a company built on quasi-moonlighters, lending their cognitive surplus to supersonic train design. In technical parlance, they’re a mesh network.

Moreover, they’re a mesh network who had to apply for the job. This means that unlike most crowdfunding efforts, where you have to take what you get, this one got to pick and choose. Not only does this give them a much higher level of talent working on the project, it also gives them a pretty healthy reserve pool, should workers involved get sucked into other projects—which, since nobody’s getting paid for a while, is bound to happen.”

Tags: ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »