Excerpts

You are currently browsing the archive for the Excerpts category.

weneedbrainanitrump9 (1)

In a short Washington Post Q&A conducted by Robert Gebelhoff, philosopher Nick Bostrom explains why he favors human enhancement. It will be a thorny thing to implement, but it’s going to happen if humans don’t succumb first to an existential risk. In fact, cognitive enhancement may be the only way we don’t become extinct. An excerpt:

Question:

You’ve written in favor of human enhancement — which includes everything from genetic engineering to “mind-uploading” — to curb the risks AI might bring. How should we balance the risks of human enhancement and artificial intelligence?

Nick Bostrom:

I don’t think human enhancement should be evaluated solely in terms of how it might influence the AI development trajectory. But it is interesting to think about how different technologies and capabilities could interact. For example, humanity might eventually be able to reach a high level of technology and scientific understanding without cognitive enhancement, but with cognitive enhancement we could get there sooner.

And the character of our progress might also be different if we were smarter: less like that of a billion monkeys hammering away furiously at a billion typewriters until something usable appears by chance, and more like the work of insight and purpose. This might increase the odds that certain hazards would be foreseen and avoided. If machine superintelligence is to be built, one may wish the folks building it to be as competent as possible.•

 

Tags: ,

time-life-building-60s-08-1000x681

Time Inc.’s fabled cocktail carts, charter planes and lavish expense accounts existed less than three decades ago, but it might as well have been the Paleozoic Era, as the violent winds of the Digital Age have spilled the drinks and caused the cash cow to run dry.

A posthumous collection by Robert Hughes, longstanding art critic for Time, is to be published this month, and Vanity Fair has run a piece about the writer enjoying a particularly expensive meal in Paris in the early ’70s. It’s an ode to the editorial independence and eye-popping perks of the Magazine Age. An excerpt:

A moment’s arithmetical reflection will show that there wasn’t the least chance of “covering” the sprawling “New York art scene.” At the very theoretical most, I had 52 articles a year. But in practice, I had nothing of the kind, because not every issue of Time had an art section. Sometimes it would be killed to make way for front-of-the-book pieces, sometimes for back-of-the-book covers; generally my allotment of stories came down to about 25, and at the very most 30, a year.

This was both a curse and a blessing. It was a curse because a lot of interesting stuff was bound to go unreported and un-noted. It was a blessing because in a week that carried no art story, I was free to work on a book, or goof off, or go fishing, or take a (liberally interpreted) “research trip.” Clearly, since I got paid every week, the blessings outweighed the curses. Being the art critic of Time in the 70s was like enjoying a perpetual research grant from the most benign of foundations. I could go more or less anywhere I wanted, look at anything I wished to, and be paid generously for doing it.

It was a very different life to that lived by critics in the “Arts & Leisure” section of The New York Times, which, compared to my own relative indolence, was all arts and practically no leisure at all. For every word I published in Time, the chief art critics of The New York Times—John Canaday, who was succeeded by Hilton Kramer and John Russell—must have pumped out three or five.

Since Time had a reputation to maintain as “the international newsmagazine,” I was not going to confine myself to New York, either. Nor would my editors have expected me to. My brief, liberally interpreted, was to cover the world. The magazine even sent me to Moscow (once) to cover an enormous retrospective of Kasimir Malevich. If there was a show in Rome or Florence, Paris or Brussels, Berlin or London, or indeed practically anywhere in Europe, a show that could be argued to hold some interest for an intelligent reader and from which two, four, or six pages of splashy color could be extracted, off I would go. I would stay in the kind of hotels I had never been able to afford—the Gritti in Venice at Biennale time, Claridge’s when in London, the Ritz in Madrid, and in Paris the Meurice—and live, without qualification or the smallest twinge of shame, the life of Riley. I knew perfectly well that this period of luxury was not going to last forever—as indeed it did not, for me or anyone else on the staff of Time—and I felt no hesitation about enjoying it while it was available; at least, in later years, when I heard some power hog from the movie industry bombing on about the truffes sous la cendre he had recently demolished at Le Park 45 during the Cannes Film Festival, I would not need to wonder what they tasted like. I, too, would have eaten them—just once. And as a matter of record, they were indeed worth eating—just that once. It is years since a Time staffer got to eat such comestibles at the company’s expense, but I did, quite often, and I cannot find an iota of shame in myself for having done so, especially since nobody on the 34th floor seemed to mind these gastronomic extravagances in the least.•

Tags:

schoolroom (1)

One thing that was sensible in the past but isn’t anymore is spending the early part of our lives being educated and then coasting on that knowledge across a lifetime. In the Industrial Revolution, things changed slowly enough for such an arrangement to sustain a society, but continuous education and reeducation must be the norm now in the Digital Revolution. It’s not that there’s no value in our current educational institutions, but they need to be merely prelude.

In a TED Talk just given in Istanbul, futurist Thomas Frey predicted two billion jobs will vanish by 2030. I can’t speak to that number or timeframe being correct, but certainly industries are going to rise and fall at an uncomfortable clip. From Frey’s Futurist Speaker post about the five sectors he thinks will be radically remade in the next 15 years:

3.) Education

The OpenCourseware Movement took hold in 2001 when MIT started recording all their courses and making them available for free online. They currently have over 2080 courses available that have been downloaded 131 million times.

In 2004 the Khan Academy was started with a clear and concise way of teaching science and math. Today they offer over 2,400 courses that have been downloaded 116 million times.

Now, the 8,000 pound gorilla in the OpenCourseware space is Apple’s iTunes U. This platform offers over 500,000 courses from 1,000 universities that have been downloaded over 700 million times. Recently they also started moving into the K-12 space.

All of these courses are free for anyone to take. So how do colleges, that charge steep tuitions, compete with “free”?

As the OpenCourseware Movement has shown us, courses are becoming a commodity. Teachers only need to teach once, record it, and then move on to another topic or something else.

In the middle of all this we are transitioning from a teaching model to a learning model. Why do we need to wait for a teacher to take the stage in the front of the room when we can learn whatever is of interest to us at any moment?

Teaching requires experts. Learning only requires coaches.

With all of the assets in place, we are moving quickly into the new frontier of a teacherless education system.

Jobs Going Away

  • Teachers.
  • Trainers.
  • Professors.

New Jobs Created

  • Coaches.
  • Course designers.
  • Learning camps.•

Tags:

Barbudos_-_Fidel_Castro_and_Camilo_Cienfuegos (1)

The U.S.-Cuba stalemate that became entrenched in 1960 with the embargo looks in retrospect like needless collateral damage of the Cold War. The peoples always liked each other, but the politics didn’t match up.

USA Today Immigration Reporter Alan Gomez just returned from a trip to Havana, and has done a Reddit AMA. The journalist comments on the things that have changed since the return of relations between the two countries and those that haven’t. The country certainly seems to be much freer in terms of expression, though it still isn’t a beacon of civil rights. You won’t be able to buy Cuban cigars in your neighborhood bodega for the foreseeable future, so lip cancer will have to wait. A few exchanges follow.

__________________________________

Question:

How do the Cuban people generally feel about Americans?

 
Alan Gomez:

The Cuban people loooooooove the American people. The disagreements lie strictly between our governments.

__________________________________

Question:

Is there any sign of political repression among the people? Do they feel free to express negative opinions about the government?

Alan Gomez:

To be absolutely clear, political repression still exists to a large degree. In fact, the number of people arrested or detained as political prisoners has increased in recent months. So that’s still happening. But on the street, it’s amazing how much people are expressing themselves now. Before, people who held the most highly-desired jobs (basically, anything where you have access to tips from foreigners, like bartenders, hotel workers, taxi drivers) would always tell you how great things are. Nowadays? They’ll tell you eeeeeeeeeeeverything that’s wrong. It’s really stunning.

_________________________________

Question:

What changes do you foresee happening in the near and far future when it comes to US/Cuba relations?

Alan Gomez:

The most immediate change you might see is in the Cuban Adjustment Act, a U.S. law that allows any Cuban who simply touches U.S. soil to stay. It’s more commonly known as the “wet-foot, dry-foot” policy. Cubans are the only immigrants who get that kind of treatment, so now that President Obama is normalizing relations with Cuba, many people want to change that policy.

Changing the U.S. embargo on Cuba will probably take longer

_________________________________

Question:

Many people are excited about the prospect of being able to legally obtain Cuban Cigars here in the states now.Are there any other major exports that you foresee coming out of Cuba?

Alan Gomez:

For now, the only change that Obama implemented is that Americans can bring back up to $100 worth of rum and cigars when they travel to Cuba. And trust me, I’ve been taking full advantage of that!

But it’s going to be a while before you can buy any of those in a U.S. store. Cuba’s private entrepreneurs are now allowed to export their products to the U.S., but the rum and cigars are produced by companies run by Cuba’s state government. So as long as the embargo is in place, the only way you’re getting your hands on those is by going to the island.•

 

Tags:

trumppizza

Donald Trump is running for the GOP nomination while simultaneously promoting the new book someone wrote for him, America Is a Paralyzed, Pathetic Old Hobo Who Shits His Underpants: How to Make America Great Again. 

The Dear Leader boldly pledged he wouldn’t take any money for his asshole campaign from billionaire donors, right after they refused to give him any. This guy has the ethics of Lincoln. George Lincoln Rockwell, I mean.

From By Kenneth P. Vogel and Ben Schreckinger’s Politico piece “Trump Courted Mega-Donors He Now Scorns“:

Trump’s courtship of Adelson, a Las Vegas casino mogul and ardent Zionist, involved “a very clear ask for money,” said a source close to Adelson, who noted the request came even as Trump was publicly declaring that he didn’t need donors’ money. “It was an odd ask.”

Trump personally called Adelson and had his staff attempt to set up a meeting in Vegas.

After declaring his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in June, Trump called Adelson to tout his pro-Israel bona fides, according to sources familiar with the call. They say Trump mentioned that he lives in heavily Jewish New York and that his daughter married a Jewish man, real estate developer Jared Kushner.

Two separate sources close to Trump’s campaign added that his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, reached out to Adelson’s political adviser, Andy Abboud, to set up a face-to-face July meeting in Las Vegas between their bosses.

Adelson later backed out. And last month, when POLITICO reported that Adelson was leaning toward supporting the GOP presidential campaign of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, whose hawkish foreign policy views align closely with Adelson’s, Trump lashed out at the senator and his potential patron.

“Sheldon Adelson is looking to give big dollars to Rubio because he feels he can mold him into his perfect little puppet. I agree!” Trump tweeted.•

Tags: , ,

There’s really no rush to send humans to explore space. Robots can handle reconnaissance and development. People should only be launched once a livable habitat has been ensured. But billionaires disagree with me, so away we will go.

The clothes are going to be the least weird thing about Mars exploration, but next-wave spacesuits will probably be a radical departure from the equipment we’re used to. In a Conversation article, David Andrew Green and Matteo Stoppa survey the latest in off-planet attire and accoutrements. An excerpt:

Mini spacecraft

Most space suits are essentially mini spacecraft. Although typically just a few millimetres thick, the suits have to provide life support and protection against the vacuum, temperature extremes and micrometeorites of space. Without this protection, the drop in pressure would cause the body to swell up and lethal bubbles of nitrogen gas to form in the blood.

Suits that maintain a lower pressure, such as the 4.3 pounds per square inch (psi) of NASA’s EMU, make it much easier to move and so are less tiring. This makes a huge difference when spacewalks can last up to eight hours. The downside is this also increases the time an astronaut needs to spend breathing pure oxygen to reduce the risk of gas bubbles forming in the blood.

For its Mars suit, however, NASA is looking at much higher pressure designs such as the soft Z-2 and the hard-and-soft hybrid Mark III. These would effectively “dock” into the spacecraft or Mars base building, allowing the astronaut to enter but leaving the suits – and the irritating and potentially toxic Martian dust – outside.

A completely different approach would be to replace suits that pressurise the gas around the body with tight-fitting, stretchy garments that provide mechanical counter-pressure. This idea was first proposed in the 1970s but has only recently become possible with the creation of suitable materials. One example is the “BioSuit” developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which uses nickel-titanium shape-memory alloys to form a “second skin.”•

Tags: ,

driveinmarket

Fast-casual dining will be automated, in small towns as well as tech hubs. From touchpad ordering to robotic food prep to drone table bussing, it’s all becoming possible now and will be increasingly cost-efficient. Sure, some establishments will retain human workers for a while and used it as a selling point–dine the way your tubercular great-grandfather did!–but this aspect of affordable dining will be going and then gone. It’s good for the bottom line and horrible for Labor.

Panera’s CEO Ron Shaich recently frankly expressed doom for the sector’s workers, announcing tech initiatives aimed at supplanting them. Hopefully the chain will employ a robot capable of making coffee drinks that don’t taste like watery graves. From Bob Bryan at Business Insider:

According to Ron Shaich, founder and CEO of Panera Bread, a tech revolution is coming, and it will be bad news for many workers.

“Labor is going to go down,” Shaich said Wednesday in a quarterly earnings call. “And as digital utilization goes up — like the sun comes up in the morning — it is going to continue to go up. Digital utilization. You are seeing it happen in Panera today.

“As it happens, it’s going to benefit larger organizations like Panera, who already have the technology in place.”

Shaich’s company, Panera Bread, is in the middle of the rollout for Panera 2.0, which includes installing touch-screen ordering stations for customers at tables and the to-go line.

While rising labor costs were not the explicit impetus for the change, Shaich recognizes it is a side benefit and “one of the reasons” for the rollout.

“When we think about 2.0 — we think about digital utilization,” Shaich said according to a transcript of the call.•

Tags: ,

virtualreality7

Why Facebook’s $2 Billion Bet on Oculus Rift Might One Day Connect Everyone On Earth, threatened a recent Vanity Fair headline, and it’s not that I don’t like you people, but I need my space. Maybe it’s time we took a break?

Seriously, I suppose humans circumventing the physical world will be both boon (educationally, for sure) and bane (aren’t we already removed enough from reality?), but most of what happens in this new realm will probably involve people masturbating with ghosts. You want Eleanor Roosevelt to give it to you rough, history majors? Yes, we have the technology to do that.

VR from Facebook probably won’t do much for me personally since my ideal virtual world would be one in which Facebook didn’t exist. Oh, well.

From Alistair Charlton at IBT:

By 2025, Facebook believes it will have built a teleporter. But not as we know it; instead of using the website to whisk you off on holiday at a moment’s notice, users will use virtual reality to be taken into a different, but believable, virtual reality world.

This is the ambitious vision of chief technical officer Mike Schroepfer, who says Facebook “wants to build a device that allows you to be anywhere you want, with anyone, regardless of geographic boundaries”. This future will make use of Oculus, the virtual reality company bought by Facebook for $2bn (£1.3bn), which is busy preparing a consumer version of the Rift VR headset.

While VR headsets present fairly believable visuals that trick your mind into believing your are somewhere else, the challenge for Facebook over the coming decade will be to make VR feel real as well as look real. Oculus’ touch controller is already in development to bring a tacticity to VR.•

Tags: ,

3033185-poster-p-tower

Nikola Tesla, an electrician, made remarkably prescient predictions about mobile and drones, even if he didn’t always fully appreciate the implications of such inventions. By the end of his career, Tesla was dreaming up wacky flying machines for apartment dwellers that couldn’t possibly take flight, but he was more correct in his era about the big picture coming into view than pretty much anyone.

Another of the inventor’s boldest visions–transmitting power wirelessly through the air–seems about to be realized. You will never be without cat memes and pornography again. The opening of Christopher Mims latest immaculately written WSJ column:

In 1902 workers completed a mysterious tower, 187 feet high and shaped like a giant mushroom, on which rested the hopes of one of the 20th century’s most prolific geniuses.

Facing the beach in the hamlet of Shoreham, N.Y., on Long Island, the Wardenclyffe Tower was, according to its inventor, Nikola Tesla, the key that could unlock an age of wonders.

As Mr. Tesla later wrote, the tower’s ability to transmit information to the far side of the Earth would someday allow the creation of “an inexpensive instrument, not bigger than a watch, [which] will enable its bearer to hear anywhere, on sea or land, music or song however distant.”

Sometime in 2016, Tesla’s other prediction—that it isn’t only possible, but commercially viable, to transmit power as well as information through the air, without wires—is expected to come true.

What is coming are hermetically sealed smartphones and other gadgets that charge without ever plugging into a wall. And soon after there will be sensors, cameras and controllers that can be stuck to any surface, indoors or out, without the need to consider how to connect them to power.•

 

Tags: ,

marsretrofuture8

America has a sadly long record of sending people off to die, often for poor and misguided reasons. Dispatching space pioneers to breathe their last on Mars would not be among those wrong-minded decisions, according to the dancingest and most-complex Apollo astronaut, Buzz Aldrin. The United States was conquered (well, stolen) by settlers who never went home, and Manifest Destiny migrants usually had no return ticket as they marched off into parts unknown. 

From Jonathan O’Callaghan at IFLScience!: 

“We will colonize Mars,” Aldrin told IFLScience, confidently. “I wrote this book, Welcome to Mars, to inspire the young people, because they will be the ones who will carry out these missions to Mars, perhaps participating in them. Maybe they’ll become a violinist, a lawyer, an engineer, or a fighter pilot if they’re lucky. Or maybe they’ll become a crew member trained by world resources, billions and billions of dollars, to go into the preparation of human beings to be selected and trained, hopefully willing to commit themselves to be pioneers, to be settlers [on Mars].”

Aldrin sees Mars as the logical next step to advancing America’s influence in space. “We have to rethink the requirements for being great in space, as a nation,” he said, “that will give America a further lasting heritage legacy in history books. And I want to be part of the planning for it.” He noted, though, that he hopes it is an international endeavor that includes nations such as China. …

He admits, though, that the idea of sending people to live out the rest of their lives on Mars might not sit well with some members of the public. “That’s not what a lot of people think the future ought to be, that the U.S. government should not commit to one-way trips,” he said.

“‘The U.S. government will never agree to send people to die on Mars,’ they say. “Well, come on. Think of history. Think of the opportunities that exist for young people in the future to become historic pioneers. Pilgrims on the Mayflower didn’t make it around Plymouth Rock for the return trip, they came here to settle America. And a lot of them lost their lives, but they pioneered what we have today. And as a military man among many, I pioneered the things that have kept our nation vibrant and alive, and optimistic. We need to instill optimism and excitement, for our children.”•

Tags: ,

We enter into a world that amazingly allows for complex, multicellular life, but is hostile to it. It’s not just diseases, quakes, storms and other relatively small-scale horrors out to get us, but now and again calamity writ large, like comet showers. We are born to die, of course, but sometimes terrifyingly and en masse. We are all dinosaurs, in a sense.

The opening of Adrienne LaFrance’s Atlantic piece about the regularity of mass extinctions, though not all the news is bad:

One thing we know for sure is that conditions on Earth were, shall we say, unpleasant for the dinosaurs at the moment of their demise. Alternate and overlapping theories suggest the great beasts were pelted with monster comets, drowned by mega-tsunamis, scorched with lava, starved by a landscape stripped of vegetation, blasted with the radiation of a dying supernova, cloaked in decades of darkness, and frozen in an ice age.

Now, a pair of researchers have new evidence to support a link between cyclical comet showers and mass extinctions, including the one that they believe wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. Michael Rampino, a geologist at New York University, and Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, traced 260 million years of mass extinctions and found a familiar pattern: Every 26 million years, there were huge impacts and major die-offs. Their work was accepted by the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society in September.•

 

Tags: , ,

laika

laika5Big

Talk about unintended consequences: The success of the Soviet satellite Sputnik in 1957 helped birth the Internet. America’s chagrin over being bested by our Cold War combatants led to the formation of DARPA, and some of that department’s money was used to seed Arpanet. Just three decades later, everyone had convenient access to cat photos and pornography.

The intended consequence of the U.S. spending spree on technology in the late ’50s and ’60s was, of course, for America to surpass the Soviets in space exploration, something that didn’t seem a good bet at the time. The Economist dug into its archives for its reportage about the success of Sputnik 2 and the death of its canine cosmonaut, Laika. The article incorrectly asserted it was almost a sure thing that Russia would reach the moon first. The opening: 

AMID the awed silence in which the world has followed the progress of the second Soviet satellite it has been possible to hear the pounding heartbeats not only of the small dog inside but also of the Western statesmen and scientists left far down below. This is not merely because Sputnik II is six times as big as its pipsqueak predecessor (and fifty times bigger than the first still-to-be-launched American satellite) and therefore so many times more impressive. If the first artificial moon had not been followed into space by a fellow-traveller, it might just conceivably have been a lucky experiment that came off. Now that there are two of them, this is no longer thinkable.

If the Russians can self-confidently throw half a ton of equipment and a living creature into their proper orbit in the sky so soon after the first satellite was despatched, they must hold an even longer lead over the Americans than was first thought. Indeed, there have been hints of new rocket designs and new kinds of missile fuel which suggest that the Americans are not only lagging behind but in certain respects may not yet even be on the same road. If it turns out that the Russians can add to all this the further achievement of ejecting the dog from the satellite and bringing it to earth at a time and (even very roughly) a place of their own choosing, the military implications will be horrendous. In addition to the probability that they will have “ordinary” intercontinental missiles ready for use very soon, some years ahead of the West, they would then be able also to girdle the earth with a fleet of incredibly fast and long-lasting bomb-carriers which, unlike the missile-launching sites, would be quite free from the threat of counter-attacks. 

This vista of a period of majestic Soviet superiority is not confined to the earth and its suburban space. Man is quite probably going to land on the moon before many years are past, to set up observation posts and to establish a jumping-off ground for further ventures among the planets. As The Economist goes to press, there is speculation that the 40th anniversary of the revolution may be further commemorated by the sight of a Russian missile knocking chips off the moon’s face. In any case, at the present rate of progress it is almost certain to be a Russian who first puts foot to ground there—and he looks like doing it a good many years before anyone else. It is this thought that provides the proper context for the protests of animal-lovers against the use of a dog in Sputnik II.•

_________________________

Public Service Broadcasting performing “Sputnik” in Ottawa.

Tags:

The Walking Dead - Season 2, Episode 1 - Photo Credit: Gene Page/AMC - DSC_0111phgn_R_Ph_Gene_Page

Some people aren’t polite about their drug addictions, and some of us are rude in return. They’re called names, like “crackheads.” How messy that such substances are purchased on streets. When these folks are minorities, the meanest among us assign blame to them based on race. It’s appalling and counterproductive. 

I’ve thought for the past decade that white Americans of what used to be called the middle class have a very polite and well-mannered drug epidemic in oxycodone and the like. The whole undertaking is as neat and clean as a prescription pad. Reports of a spiked usage would regularly be published, but I worried that maybe I suffered from confirmation bias because I’ve spent so much time visiting relatives in hospitals the last few years. In these facilities, it’s easy to assume an oxy epidemic. The same goes for other self-destructive behaviors (obesity, alcoholism, etc.) appearing to be rampant.

It’s worth wondering how much opioid use is causing the alarming trend in the U.S. of the increasing deaths in white, middle-aged citizens, which has just been reported in a stunning paper by Anne Case and Angus Deaton. Why are people in this group drugging, eating and drinking themselves to death? Why have they become the walking dead? Some of it is overt suicide, some buried in risky behaviors.

From Gina Kolata of the New York Times:

The mortality rate for whites 45 to 54 years old with no more than a high school education increased by 134 deaths per 100,000 people from 1999 to 2014.

“It is difficult to find modern settings with survival losses of this magnitude,” wrote two Dartmouth economists, Ellen Meara and Jonathan S. Skinner, in a commentary to the Deaton-Case analysis to be published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Wow,” said Samuel Preston, a professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania and an expert on mortality trends and the health of populations, who was not involved in the research. “This is a vivid indication that something is awry in these American households.”

Dr. [Angus] Deaton had but one parallel. “Only H.I.V./AIDS in contemporary times has done anything like this,” he said. …

David M. Cutler, a Harvard health care economist, said that although it was known that people were dying from causes like opioid addiction, the thought was that those deaths were just blips in the health care statistics and that over all everyone’s health was improving. The new paper, he said, “shows those blips are more like incoming missiles.”•

Tags: , , , , , ,

ben-carson

I’ve argued that Donald Trump isn’t a true Presidential candidate but rather an impetuous baby-man who desperately needs attention but desires none of the very real responsibility that comes with such a job. 

Of course, running for the GOP nomination for reasons other than politics isn’t something novel to 2015. For quite a while and for quite a few “candidates,” the process has been merely a stepping-stone to more lucrative businesses, from FOX News correspondent to right-wing think-tank appointments to speaking tours. The losers now will be later to win.  

How many of the Republican swarm this time are really just Herman Cain without the pizza and the 999s? In a New York column, Jonathan Chait nominates Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon who’s worked on a lot of brains, though, it would seem based on his ideas about America, not his own. One of the polling leaders, Carson seems less concerned with whistle-stop tours than the gravy train.

Chait’s opening:

On February 7, 2013, Ben Carson appeared at a National Prayer Breakfast, where he visibly annoyed President Obama by delivering a right-wing speech denouncing Obamacare and cultural liberalism, and calling for a flat tax based on the biblical tithe. Conservatives, still devastated by Obama’s reelection, took delight in the appearance on the scene of a surprising new presidential antagonist, who until that point had no political profile. “Finally, a self-reliant conservative decided to make this every bit as political as Obama does,” tweeted conservative pundit David Limbaugh. The Wall Street Journal celebrated Carson’s remarks in a shorteditorial, headlined “Ben Carson for President.” The headline was obviously hyperbolic; nothing in the text that followed proposed that Carson run for public office.

But now Carson actually is running for president. Or is he? It is hard to tell. Conservative politics are so closely intermingled with a lucrative entertainment complex that it is frequently impossible to distinguish between a political project (that is, something designed to result in policy change) and a money-making venture. Declaring yourself a presidential candidate gives you access to millions of dollars’ worth of free media attention that can build a valuable brand. So the mere fact that Carson calls himself a presidential candidate does not prove he is actually running for president rather than taking advantage of the opportunity to build his brand. Indeed, it is possible to be actually leading the polls without seriously trying to win the presidency.

And the notion that Carson could be president is preposterous.•

Tags: ,

allenkeaton (1)

Hell is other people–and robots. 

The problem with making machines resemble us is that we’re the worst, and then they’ll be likewise. Hit the mute button instead. Some Silicon Valley stalwarts think eliding what may be deemed unnecessary social interaction from our lives is a growth market. Make machines unobtrusively do things that pesky people now handle. The jobs will be lost (in hotels, restaurants, etc.) but so will the unwanted communication.

In all seriousness, I do think disappearing human (and human-ish) nuisance will probably just make us worse to one another. What we want isn’t necessarily what we need. From Stuart Dredge in the Guardian:

Why does humanity need robots? Sometimes, to spare us the need to talk to other humans, according to Andra Keay, managing director of Silicon Valley Robotics.

Speaking at the Web Summit conference in Dublin, she cited the example of Relay, a robot designed to work in hotels, taking items from staff to guests.

“People do enjoy the social interaction with the robot, but it turns out what they enjoy most is not having to have a social interaction with another person at a time when they’re not feeling sociable,” said Keay. …

“We don’t always recognise the future when we see it. How do we recognise robots? We usually look for humanoids: something with a head, arms, legs. Optional glowing red eyes, super-weapons and evil intent to destroy humanity,” she said.

Keay preferred a more basic description of a robot – “Just a machine that senses things and acts” – suggesting that items from cars to washing machines fall under the category.•

Tags: ,

chinayesmen

In the 1930s, there were prominent Americans in awe of Mussolini, even Hitler, for their fascistic rule, believing authoritarian technocracy an unbeatable system. Now that’s a way to run a country. Some now speak with a similar reverence of China, a nation able to move mountains, a moonshot of capitalism “unencumbered” by democracy. Of course, they conveniently elide the world’s-worst cancer rates and air pollution, as well as political imprisonments that attend oppression.

But there’s an alternative narrative, if a controversial one: China is, in fact, a meritocratic system, even if it doesn’t allow for a one-vote, one-person arrangement. Philosopher Daniel A. Bell is the leading proponent of this theory, believing the country needs reform but has a basic structure that can work in an ideal situation. Except that basic structure would seem to be a permanent impediment to achieving the ideal.

Capitalism has its limits for sure (something China will also learn), but democracy, flawed as it is, is still the best alternative, with far less potential for large-scale abuse. A lack of gridlock can be wonderful or lead a massive nation into a major misstep. From Eric Fish at The Atlantic:

Since the collapse of several authoritarian regimes in the 1980s and 1990s—most notably the Soviet Union—conventional wisdom in political science has held that dictatorships inevitably democratize or stagnate. This wisdom has even been applied to China, where the Communist Party (CCP) has presided over 26 years of economic growth since violently suppressing protests at Tiananmen Square. In 2012, the political theorist and Tsinghua University philosophy professor Daniel A. Bell aroused controversy among many China-watchers for challenging this idea. In several op-eds published in prominent Western publications, Bell argued that China’s government, far from being an opaque tyranny, actually presented a “meritocratic” alternative to liberal, multiparty democracy. In a new book titled The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy, Bell expands on that idea.

“I disagree with the view that there’s only one morally legitimate way of selecting leaders: one person, one vote,” Bell said at a recent debate hosted by ChinaFile at Asia Society in New York.•

 

Tags: ,

flighttothemoon

If we don’t kill off our species before space travel and interplanetary living become the new normal, it certainly will be difficult for those born into that reality to imagine life as it was before. 

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden thinks the youngest among us will the first to accept space travel as the natural condition, and he’s awfully sanguine about how exploring other planets and asteroids will impact life on Earth. What JFK said in proposing a journey to the moon still holds true: “There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again.” Being humans and fallible, I would guess these new treks and achievements will also deliver new struggles and failings both down here and out there.

From Lucy Ingham at Factor Tech:

Charles Bolden, the administrator of NASA, has described today’s children as the “Space Generation,” saying they will have the opportunity to travel beyond Earth.

In a speech to the Center for American Progress in Washington today, Bolden said that the mission to Mars, the plans for which were detailed by the space agency earlier this month, would involve his granddaughters’ generation.

“I’ve been blessed to be able to travel to nearly every corner of our world, and I’ve been blessed to have seen the planet from space over the course of four space shuttle missions,” he said. “I can honestly tell you, however, that there is nothing, not a single thing, quite as awe-inspiring as being able to look into the eyes of my three beautiful granddaughters.

“To me, American progress is all about the world in which they’ll grow up, the world where they’ll someday raise their own children and grandchildren when we talk about our journey to Mars, when we talk about the next giant leaps in space exploration, we’re talking about their generation.”•

 

Tags: ,

robottaxidriverless

Unless it stops being such a homogenous culture, Japan, with its graying population, will need someone–or something–to do the work, including ferrying older folks to the grocery store. One benefit among the many downsides to hosting the Olympics is the development of infrastructure, and in the case of Tokyo 2020, the nation is aiming to retrofit a fleet of thousands of taxis with driverless capacity to handle the overflow of visitors. It would be quite a scene, and the nation sees it as a chance to announce a renewed technological prowess on a world stage. 

I’ve blogged before about Robot Taxi conducting a very small-scale experiment with autonomous cabs in 2016, and the development will have to be accelerated greatly after that if the unmovable deadline is to be met. From Dan Frommer at Quartz:

Japan is planning to use the 2020 Tokyo Olympics as an opportunity to show the world it’s still a tech leader. One of those efforts—if the technology and regulatory clearances shape out—could be an autonomous, self-driving taxi service, currently in development.

Tokyo-based Robot Taxi (link in Japanese) is still on track to start field tests of its driverless taxi service in one region of Japan by the end of next March, its chief executive Hiroshi Nakajima told Quartz today (Nov. 2). The company, a joint venture between DeNA (one of Japan’s mobile internet pioneers) and ZMP (a robotics firm; tagline “Robot of Everything”) is not building its own cars from scratch. Instead, it’s focusing on adding driverless capabilities to existing cars and designing, creating, and marketing the taxi service. 

One key market for the service, Nakajima says, is Japan’s increasingly elderly population, especially in rural areas where there may be driver shortages.•

Tags:

Donald Trump.

Donald Trump.

Syphilis.

Syphilis.


Donald Trump wants you to believe he’s not such a terrible guy, the way a drug-resistant strain of gonorrhea would like you to think it’s merely syphilis. Sure, you’ll have ulcerous lesions on your genitals, but you won’t develop any tumor-like balls of inflammation in your liver if you’re promptly treated with penicillin. That’s what gonorrhea would have you believe.

The hideous hotelier also recently tried to convince Nevada Republicans that his candidacy isn’t only about celebrity. Holy fuck, what else does he have? Valuable foreign-policy experience gained in Westchester?

From Jenna Johnson and Robert Costa at the Washington Post:

“It’s not about being a celebrity,” Trump said. “It’s about having a view that’s captivating the people in this country, because they’re tired of being taken advantage of, they’re tired of being stupid, they’re tired of having their leaders be outnegotiated on every single deal. They’re tired of it. They’re tired of having China rip us off on every trade deal — and Japan and Mexico and everybody else. They’re tired of it.”

Absent from Trump’s speech was the usual blizzard of barbs about his opponents, such as questioning Carson’s religion, mocking Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) for profusely sweating or accusing former Florida governor Jeb Bush of being “low energy.” Trump instead praised Rubio and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) for their strong debate performances the previous night. The only time he mentioned Carson was to describe how they partnered up to pressure CNBC to limit the debate length.

And Trump thanked former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who barely made it onto the debate stage, for defending him the night before when debate moderators asked the governor to comment on Trump’s morals.

“There aren’t a lot of people that would do that,” Trump said. “He had a perfect opportunity to talk about himself, and he didn’t do that, so he’s a special guy.”

The softened tone was welcomed by many in the audience.

“He needs to cool it,” said Les Birch, 77, a retired elevator builder who lives in Carson City and defends Trump’s policy positions in Facebook conversations but doesn’t weigh in on Trump’s critiques of other candidates. “He needs to stop attacking people personally.”•

Tags: , ,

321moon-obit-1-jumbo

Ten years after Rev. Sun Myung Moon presided over a 1982 mass wedding in Madison Square Garden, New York Times reporter Melinda Henneberger caught up with some of the 4,000 strangers who were consciously coupled. The article’s opening:

When Jonathan and Debby Gullery were married 10 years ago, in a mass wedding of 2,075 couples at Madison Square Garden, they were widely viewed as bit players in a bizarre show produced by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Strangers screamed at them as they sold flowers on the street, and Mrs. Gullery’s father said he thought seriously about having her kidnapped and brought home.

But over the last decade, the Gullerys say, both they and their church have grown up and settled down. On a recent evening, amid the chaos of bedtime for their three young children, they took turns coaxing the 4-year-old back to her room while Mrs. Gullery’s father, who was visiting from Vermont, took refuge in the novel he was reading in the living room of their suburban home.

Mr. Gullery now owns his own graphic arts business, and the couple’s oldest child, who is 7, attends the local public school. Their youngest is 2. To celebrate their 10th anniversary, they took the children to Burger King.

“Things change in 10 years,” Mrs. Gullery said. “Our church has changed, we’ve changed, our family has changed. With our neighbors, we didn’t put a sign out and say, ‘Here we are, we’re the neighborhood Moonies,’ but they all have kids and after they got to know us, it was O.K. The last couple of years have been fairly low key.”

Their lives are nonetheless quite different from their neighbors’. They remain completely dedicated to the Unification Church, rising early each morning for family prayer, and offering up all their daily tasks to the service of God and Mr. Moon, who is for them the second Messiah.•

Footage of the blessed event.

___________________________________

John-Cheever-001

From a 1979 People article about the late-life John Cheever, who was every bit as good at the short-story form as F. Scott Fitzgerald or Flannery O’Connor or Paul Bowles or any American writer:

Instead of whiskey, the traditional tonic of his profession, the tumbler in Cheever’s hand contains dark tea nowadays, and he distastefully yet methodically counts leftover cigarette butts in his ashtray, a requirement of Smokenders. Cheever joined because “there is something humiliating about getting off the plane in a place like Sofia and thinking, ‘Oh, my God, are they going to have my brand?’” Once tormented by phobias, Cheever required a slug of Scotch from the bottle in the glove compartment before he dared drive across a bridge. He was the despair of his publishers’ PR men, an author who disappeared for six weeks after the publication of a book and refused interviews upon returning. When his first novel was finished, he fled to Rome for a full year. Today such quirks have vanished. At 66, John Cheever is a resurrected man.

“Five years ago I was washing down Thorazine with Scotch,” he says candidly. “I felt suicidal; my life and my career were over. I wanted to end it.” Always a hard drinker, Cheever sank into alcoholism after a near-fatal heart attack in 1972. He swore off temporarily but relapsed while teaching at Boston University. Novelist John Updike, an old friend, saw him at his alcoholic nadir and sadly remarked, ‘I keep thinking the John Cheever I know is in there someplace.’ Finally, with the support of his family, Cheever faced the facts of his behavior (“such a loss of dignity”) and agreed to enter Smithers, an exclusive Manhattan clinic for alcoholism. “If you can have it cured,” he says, five years later, “I am cured.” When released after 32 days, he promptly sat down and, in less than a year, wrote his much-acclaimed fourth novel, Falconer, a gothic tale of life in a prison very much like Sing Sing. Cheever knew his subject well: He once taught a writing course to the convicts.

“I don’t know where the blackness in my life comes from,” Cheever says. “There is a great deal of sadness, of melancholy. I have no idea where it originates.” Part of it may stem from Cheever’s seafaring Yankee ancestry, and his grandfather, who, Cheever was told, committed suicide. John was born in Quincy, Mass., the son of a businessman bankrupted by the crash of ’29. His father was often away, and he and his older brother, Fred (also an alcoholic, who died in 1976), were raised by their English mother. She supported the family with a small gift shop, a source of embarrassment to Cheever. He was close to his maternal grandmother “partly because she called my mother a cretin, which is an easy way to endear yourself to a child” and remembers that she insisted French be spoken at meals. “I don’t recall her French was all that good.”

Dick Cavett interviews Cheever and fellow literary light John Updike in 1981. Expect no Mailer-Vidal fireworks.

___________________________________

Ham_Retreival_GPN-2000-001004-19612

Wernher von Braun, Nazi scientist, warranted a hanging for his crimes against humanity, but he had a talent considered crucial during the early stages of the Cold War, so his past was whitewashed, and he was installed as the leader of NASA’s space program, ultimately becoming something of an American hero. So very, very unfair.

But his horrific past in Germany bled over into his new one in the U.S. in his early ’50s plan to send a “baby satellite” into space for two months with a crew of three rhesus monkeys. The mission completed, the rocket would burn up as it reentered the atmosphere. To save the primates from the pain of an inferno, Braun wanted to create an automatic switch which would gas the monkeys to death–yes, a gas chamber in space! “The monkeys will die instantly and painlessly,” he wrote in a 1952 Collier’s article he co-authored with Cornelius Ryan. It staggers the mind.

The article:

WE ARE at the threshold today of our first bold venture into space. Scientists and engineers working toward man’s exploration of the great new frontier know now that they are going to send aloft a robot laboratory as the first step—a baby space station which for 60 days will circle the earth at an altitude of 200 miles and a speed of 17,200 miles an hour, serving as scout for the human pioneers to follow.

We rocket engineers have learned a lot about space by shooting off the high-flying rockets now in existence—so much that right now we know how to build the rocket ships and the big space station we need to put man into space and keep him there comfortably. We know how to train space crews and how to protect them from the hazards which exist above our atmosphere. All that has been reported in previous issues ofCollier’s.

But the rockets which have gathered our data have stayed in space for only a few minutes at a time. The baby satellite will give us 60 days; we’ll learn more in those two months than in 10 years of firing the present instrument rockets.

We can begin work on the new space vehicle immediately. The baby satellite will look like a 30-foot ice-cream cone, topped by a cross of curved mirrors which draw power from the sun. Its tapered casing will contain a complicated maze of measuring instruments, pressure gauges, thermometers, microphones and Geiger counters, all hooked up to a network of radio, radar and television transmitters which will keep watchers on earth informed about what’s going on inside it.

Speeding 30 times faster than today’s best jets, the little satellite will make one circuit around the earth every 91 minutes—nearly 16 round trips a day. At dawn and dusk it will be visible to the naked eye as a bright, unwinking star, reflecting the sun’s rays and traveling from horizon to horizon in about seven minutes. Ninety-one minutes later, it completes the circuit—but if you look for it in the same place, it won’t be there: it travels in a fixed orbit, while the earth, rotating on its own axis, moves under it. An hour and a half from the time you first sighted the speeding robot, it will pass over the earth hundreds of miles to the west. The cone will never be visible in the dark of night, because it will be in the shadow of the earth.

If you live in Philadelphia, one morning you may see the satellite overhead just before sunup, moving on a southeasterly course. Ninety-one minutes later, as dawn breaks over Wichita, Kansas, people there will see it, and after another hour and a half it will be visible over Los Angeles—again, just before the break of dawn.

That evening, Philadelphians—and the people of Wichita and Los Angeles—will see the speeding satellite again, this time traveling in a northeasterly direction. The following morning, it will be in sight again over the same cities, at about the same time, a little farther to the west.

After about ten days, it will no longer appear over those three cities, but will be visible over other areas. Thus, from any one site, it will be seen on successive occasions for about 20 days before disappearing below the western horizon. In another month or so, it will show up again in the east. And while you’re gazing at the little satellite, it will be peering steadily back, through a television camera in its pointed nose. The camera will give official viewers in stations scattered around the globe the first real panoramic picture of our world—a breath-taking view of the land masses, oceans and cities as seen from 200 miles up. More than likely, commercial TV stations will pick up the broadcasts and relay them to your home.

Three more cameras, located inside the cone, will transmit equally exciting pictures: the first sustained view of life in space.

Three rhesus monkeys—rhesus, because that species is small and highly intelligent—will live aboard the satellite in air-conditioned comfort, feeding from automatic food dispensers. Every move they make will be watched, through television, by the observers on earth.

As fast as the robot’s recording instruments gather information, it will be flashed to the ground by the same method used now in rocket-flight experiments. The method is called telemetering, and it works this way: as many as 50 reporting devices are hooked to a single transmitter which sends out a jumble of tonal waves. A receiver on earth picks up the tangled signals, and a decoding machine unscrambles the tones and prints the information automatically on long strips of paper, as a series of spidery wavelike lines. Each line represents the findings of a particular instrument—cabin temperature, air pressure and so on. Together, they’ll provide a complete story of the happenings inside and outside the baby space station.

What kind of scientific data do we hope to get? Confirmation of all space research to date and, most important, new information on weightlessness, cosmic radiation and meteoric dust.

At a high enough speed and a certain altitude, an object will travel in an orbit around the earth. It— and everything in it—will be weightless. Space scientists and engineers know that man can adjust to weightlessness, because pilots have simulated the condition briefly by flying a jet plane in a rollercoaster arc. But will sustained weightlessness raise problems we haven’t foreseen? We must find out—and the monkeys on the satellite will tell us.

The monkeys will live in two chambers of the animal compartment. In the smaller section, one of the creatures will lie strapped to a seat throughout the two-month test. His hands and head will be free, so he can feed himself, but his body will be bound and covered with a jacket to keep him from freeing himself or from tampering with the measuring instruments taped painlessly to his body. The delicate recording devices will provide vital information—body temperature, breathing cycle, pulse rate, heartbeat, blood pressure and so forth.

The other two monkeys, separated from their pinioned companion so they won’t turn him loose, will move about freely in the larger section. During the flight from earth, these two monkeys will be strapped to shock-absorbing rubber couches, under a mild anesthetic to spare them the discomfort of the acceleration pressure. By the time the anesthetic wears off, the robot will have settled in its circular path about the earth, and a simple timing device will release the two monkeys. Suddenly they’ll float weightless, inside the cabin.

What will they do? Succumb to fright? Perhaps cower in a corner for two months and slowly starve to death? I don’t think so. Chances are they’ll adjust quickly to their new condition. We’ll make it easier for them to get around by providing leather handholds along the walls, like subway straps, and by stringing a rope across the chamber.

There’s another problem for the three animals: to survive the 60 days they must eat and drink.

They’ll prepare to cope with that problem on the ground. For months before they take off, the two unbound monkeys will live in a replica of the compartment they’ll occupy in space, learning to operate food and liquid dispensers. In space, each of the two free animals will have his own feeding station. At specific intervals a klaxon horn will sound; the monkeys will respond by rushing to the feeding stations as they’ve been trained to do. Their movement will break an electric-eye beam, and clear plastic doors will snap shut behind them, sealing them off from their living quarters. Then, while they’re eating, an air blower will flush out the living compartment—both for sanitary reasons and to keep weightless refuse from blocking the television lenses. The plastic doors will spring open again when the housecleaning is finished.

The monkeys will drink by sucking plastic bottles. Liquid left free, without gravity to keep it in place, would hang in globules. To get solid food, each of the monkeys—again responding to their training—will press a lever on a dispenser much like a candy or cigarette machine. The lever will open a door, enabling the animals to reach in for their food. They’ll get about half a pound of food a day—a biscuit made of wheat, soybean meal and bone meal, enriched with vitamins. The immobilized monkey will have the same food; his dispensers will be within easy reach.

For the two free monkeys, it will be a somewhat complicated life. The way they react to their ground training under the new conditions posed by lack of gravity will provide invaluable information on how weightlessness will affect them.

While the monkeys are providing physiologists with information on weightlessness, physicists will be learning more about cosmic rays, invisible high-speed atomic particles which act like deep penetrating X rays and were once feared as the major hazard of space flight. Theoretically, in large enough doses cosmic rays could conceivably cause deep burns, damage the eyes, produce malignant growths and even upset the normal hereditary processes. They don’t do much damage to us on earth because the atmosphere dissipates their full strength, but before much was known about the rays people worried about the dangers they might pose to man in space. From recent experiments scientists now know that the risk was mostly exaggerated—that even beyond the atmosphere a human can tolerate the rays for long periods without ill effects. Still, the best figures available have been obtained by high-altitude instrument rocket flights which were too brief to be conclusive. These spot checks must be augmented by a prolonged study, and the baby space station will make that possible.

The concentration of cosmic rays over the earth varies, being greatest over the north and south magnetic poles. The baby space station will follow a circular path that will carry it close to both poles within every hour and a half, so it can determine if cosmic-ray concentration varies that high up.

Geiger counters inside and outside the robot will measure the number of cosmic particle hits. The telemetering apparatus will signal the information to the ground—and for the first time physicists will have an accurate indication of the cosmic-ray concentration in space, above all parts of the globe.

Besides cosmic rays, the baby satellite will be hit by high-speed space bullets—tiny meteors, most of them smaller than a grain of sand, whizzing through space faster than 1,000 miles a minute.

When men enter space, they’ll be protected against these pellets. Their rockets, the big space station, even their space suits, will have an outer skin called a meteor bumper, which will shatter the lightning-fast missiles on impact. But how many grainiike meteors must the bumpers absorb every 24 hours? That’s what we space researchers want to know. So dime-sized microphones will be scattered over the robot’s outer skin to record the number and location of the impacts as they occur.

In the process of unmasking the secrets of space, the baby satellite also will unravel a few riddles of our own earth.

For example, there are numerous islands whose precise position in the oceans has never been accurately established because there is no nearby land to use as a reference point. Some of them—one is Bouvet Island, lying south of the Cape of Good Hope—have been the subject of international disputes which could be quickly settled by fixing the islands’ positions. By tracking the baby space station as it passes over these islands, we’ll accurately pinpoint their locations for the first time.

The satellite will be even more important to meteorologists. The men who study the weather would like to know how much of the earth is covered with cloud in any given period. The robot’s television camera will give them a clue—a start toward sketching in a comprehensive picture of the world’s weather. Moreover, by studying the pattern of cloud movement, particularly over oceans, they may learn how to predict weather fronts with precision months in advance. Most of the weather research must await construction of a man-carrying space station, but the baby satellite will show what’s needed.

To collect this information, of course, we must first establish the little robot in its 200-mile orbit. All the knowledge needed for its construction and operation is already available to experts in the fields of rocketry, television and telemetering.

Before take-off, the satellite vehicle will resemble one of today’s high-altitude rockets, except that it will be about three times as big—150 feet tall, and 30 feet wide at the base. After take-off it will become progressively smaller, because it actually will consist of three rockets—or stages—one atop another, two of which will be cast away after delivering their full thrust. The vehicle will take off vertically and then tilt into a shallow path nearly parallel to the earth. Its course will be over water at first, so the first two stages won’t fall on anyone after they’re dropped, a few minutes after take-off.

When the third stage of the vehicle reaches an altitude of 60 miles and a speed of 17,700 miles an hour, the final bank of motors will shut off automatically. The conical nose section will coast unpowered to the 200-mile orbit, which it will reach at a speed of 17,100 miles an hour, 44 minutes later. The entire flight will take 48 1/2 minutes.

After the satellite reaches its orbit, the automatic pilot will switch on the motors once again to boost the velocity to 17,200 miles an hour—the speed required to balance the earth’s gravity at that altitude. Now the rocket becomes a satellite; it needs no more power but will travel steadily around the earth like a small moon for 60 days, until the slight air drag present at the 200-mile altitude slows it enough to drop.

Once the satellite enters its orbit, gyroscopically controlled flywheels cartwheel the nose until it points toward the earth. At the same time, five little antennas spring out from the cone’s sides and a small explosive charge blasts off the nose cap which has guarded the TV lens during the ascent.

Finally, the satellite’s power plant—a system of mirrors which catch the sun’s rays and turn solar heat into electrical energy—rises into place at the broad end of the cone. A battery-operated electric timer starts a hydraulic pump, which pushes out a telescopic rod. At the end of the rod are the three curved mirrors. When the rod is fully extended, the mirrors unfold, side by side, and from the ends of the central mirror two extensions slip out. Mercury-filled pipes run along the five polished plates; the heated mercury will operate generators providing 12 kilowatts of power. Batteries will take over the power functions while the satellite is passing through the shadow of the earth.

With the power plant in operation, the baby space station buckles down to its 60-day assignment as man’s first listening post in space.

At strategic points over the earth’s surface, 20 or more receiving stations, most of them set up in big trailers, will track the robot by radar as it passes overhead, and record the television and telemetering broadcasts on tape and film. Because the satellite’s radio waves travel in a straight line, the trailers can pick up broadcasts for just a few minutes at a time—only while the robot remains in sight as it zooms from horizon to horizon.

As the satellite passes out of range, the recorded data will be sent to a central station in the United States—some of it transmitted by radio, the rest shipped by plane. There, the information will be evaluated and integrated from day to day.

The monitoring posts will be set up inside the Arctic and Antarctic Circles and at points near the equator. In the polar areas, stations could be at Alaska, southern Greenland and Iceland; and in the south, Shetland Islands, Campbell Island and South Georgia Island. In the Pacific, possible sites are Baker Island, Christmas Island, Hawaii and the Galapagos Islands.

The remaining monitors may be located in Puerto Rico, Bermuda, St. Helena, Liberia, South-West Africa, Ethiopia, Maldive Islands, the Malay Peninsula, the Philippines, northern Australia and New Zealand. These points, all in friendly territory, would form a chain around the earth, catching the satellite’s broadcasts at least once a day.

The monitor stations will be fairly costly, but they’ll come in handy again later, when man is ready to launch the first crew-operated rocket ships for development of a big-manned space station, 1,075 miles from the earth.

The cost of the baby satellite project will be absorbed into the four-billion-dollar 10-year program to establish the bigger satellite. We scientists can have the baby rocket within five to seven years if we begin work now. Five years later, we could have the manned space station.

One of the monitoring posts will view the last moments of the baby space station. As the weeks pass, the satellite, dragging against the thin air, will drop lower and lower in its orbit. When it descends into fairly dense air, its skin will be heated by friction, causing the temperature to rise within the animal compartments. At last, a thermostat will set off an electric relay which triggers a capsule containing a quick-acting lethal gas. The monkeys will die instantly and painlessly. Soon afterward, the telemetering equipment will go silent, as the rush of air rips away the solar mirrors which provide power, and the baby space station will begin to glow cherry red. Then suddenly the satellite will disappear in a long white streak of brilliant light—marking the spectacular finish of man’s first step in the conquest of space.•

Months before America sent its first astronaut into space in 1961 and kicked the race to the moon into another gear, a chimpanzee named Ham departed Earth on a Mercury mission. Thankfully, he wasn’t gassed. Trained beginning in 1959 with behaviorist methods, Ham was not only a passenger but also performed small tasks during his suborbital flight. In the NASA photo above, Ham shakes hands with his rescuer aboard the U.S.S. Donner, after his 16-minute mission was successfully completed and he plunged back to his home. The famous chimp lived until 1983 and is buried at the International Space Hall of Fame in New Mexico. The following video tells his saga.

reuters_rm_photo_of_dr_ben_carson

It’s no secret that avuncular cryptkeeper Stephen King is on the left politically, feeling the greatest horror of all is opportunists cloaked in faux religion and patriotism. As you might imagine, the current Halloween parade of GOP candidates has left him dismayed. From Angela S. Allan’s Los Angeles Review of Books Q&A with the author:

Question:

You’ve also been very outspoken in your nonfiction on issues like gun control and taxation. Do you think of your novels as making political statements?

Stephen King:

I always get some letters from some people who are disgruntled because they feel like the right wing has been dissed and that’s probably true. I’ve been left of center my entire life. Well, not entirely. My wife will tell you that I voted for Richard Nixon in 1968 in the first election I could vote in, because Richard Nixon said he planned to get us out of Vietnam. Tabby will say, “And Steve believed him!” Well, I did! Nixon would say, “Yes, I have this plan, but it wouldn’t be proper to say anything before the election.” So, I voted for him and his plan was to escalate things further.

I got more and more radicalized. My politics have described a course of being somewhere on the right. Because I grew up in Maine, all my folks were Republicans. They swore by the Republican Party and they swore at the Democrats. Vietnam radicalized me. It radicalized a lot of kids. Never to the point where I joined SDS or burned buildings or anything like that, but I understood the people who did. And I’m still left of center. There are still things on the right-wing side that make me crazy. You know, especially the people who profess to be Christians. I just can’t understand the double standard.

What makes me particularly crazy is that you’ll see these Republican candidates, and Ben Carson is the worst. He talks about the national debt and he talks about how our grandchildren are going to inherit this debt. All of these guys talk about their grandchildren when it’s about money. None of them talk about them when it comes to the environment and how their grandchildren are all going to be wearing fucking gas masks. That makes me crazy.•

 

Tags: , ,

washingmachine6

In the big picture, I’m with the FT‘s Tim Harford on the issue of “economic singularity,” meaning that while I believe things may change more quickly going forward, I don’t believe scarcity will be solved immediately or soon thereafter. Not today and not tomorrow, unless we’re defining that latter term very broadly. 3D printers will be a tremendous boon in terms of material goods (though they will also bring new dangers), but the world isn’t on the verge of unbridled material wealth. That just doesn’t happen overnight.

In his latest column, Harford is skeptical that the moment of unthinkably great production has (almost) arrived, as prophesied by the messiahs of machine utopia: Robin Hanson, whom I mostly know from a rather kooky, sci-fi Ted Talk; and Ray Kurzweil, a brilliant inventor who has reinvented himself as a sage of increasingly outré near-term predictions.

Harford’s opening:

Are we nearing a dramatic moment in economic history? Before humans developed agriculture, the world population — and thus the world economy — doubled in size roughly every 250,000 years. After acquiring the power of agriculture, the world economy doubled in size roughly every 900 years. After the industrial revolution, growth accelerated again, and since the second world war the world economy has been doubling in size roughly every 15 years. These numbers have been collated by Robin Hanson, an economist at George Mason University in Virginia; they are based on educated guesses by various economic historians.

If another step change of a similar scale were to happen, the world economy would double in size between now and Christmas. That is hard to imagine but, before the industrial revolution happened, it too would have been hard to imagine. And a small band of believers, not short on imagination, look forward to an economic “singularity”. Hanson is one of them, and the computer scientist Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity Is Near, is perhaps the most famous.

The singularity would be a point at which, rather than humans developing new technologies, the new technologies developed themselves. They would do so at a rate far beyond our comprehension. After the singularity, our civilisation would be in the hands of cyborgs, or brains uploaded into the cloud, or genetically enhanced superbeings, or something else able to make itself smarter at a tremendous rate. The future economy might consist of rapid interactions between artificial intelligences. The idea that it might double in size every few weeks no longer seems quite so unimaginable.

But it is one thing to imagine such a future. It is another thing to have confidence that it is approaching.•

Tags: , ,

I think Steve Wozniak is great because how can you not, but I am willing to wager there will still be some humans driving cars in 20 years, though the Woz predicted there won’t be in his keynote speech at the Gartner Symposium. Hyperbole aside, he is right that driverless is gaining speed, even if the ETA is MIA. The Apple co-founder also gave voice to his concerns about surveillance enabled by technologies, though he acknowledges that war has likely been lost. Two excerpts about the address from Divina Paredes at Computerworld.

________________________

“It was a magical experience… like Disneyland all the time.”

This is how Steve Wozniak described his experience driving his Tesla car on autopilot for two nights in a row.

The co-founder of Apple and chief scientist at Fusion-IO, said the car was making decisions on on the road, and his hands need not be on the wheel. “It was just a wonderful feeling.”

“Self driving cars is the biggest technology for the future,” said Wozniak during his keynote at the Gartner Symposium/ITxpo at the Gold Coast.

“In the future, self driving cars will avoid problems humans make,” he said. They will have artificial intelligence. They will see speed limits, red lights and people walking across their path and even any kind of obstacles.

“In 20 years, no human drivers will be allowed except for the young kids at Disneyland.”

________________________

“Every purchase you make, every place you go, your face is being recognised, every keystroke you type on your computer, somebody could be looking at your computer at what you are doing.”

“It bothers me…I am very much on the side of civil liberties and protecting privacy,” he said, adding that he is one of the founders of the US Electronic Frontier Foundation that advocates for these rights.

“Humans should be much more important than technology,” he said. “But we lost the battle to machines 200 years ago. We will always fire a human but not fire a machine that makes our cheap clothing.”•

Tags: ,

A piece from Frank Deford’s 1986 SI profile of a most troubling artist, Hitler’s favorite filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, as an obstinate octogenarian:

Leni Riefenstahl is remarkably hale for 83. Her hair is an ingenue’s strawberry blonde, and she flirts with as much proficiency as ever. Her eyes are clear, a fawn brown with a ring of gray-green fringing the iris. Her mind is a well-lighted room, her will as unyielding as it was down all the interrogations and trials. She will not give an inch, growing testy now, then rude, to snoopers who would dare to trespass on those olden times she shared with evil men.

Only her hip, injured in a skiing accident, troubles her. For therapy she swims, diving with a camera as far as 50 meters down, alone amid the rocks and the coral and the sand. ”Underwater, I
have no pain,” she says.

Above the water she works ceaselessly, carving out her memoirs, to finish them, for they are, she dreams, the one last proof of her innocence. For all the courts that cleared her, American and
French and German alike, there was no public absolution for her and certainly no redemption in the world of film. Still, some consider her the greatest female director who ever lived, the creator of the
greatest sports film ever made. It is 50 summers now since she shot Olympia and, like the athletes, won a gold medal for it. But after that there would be only one more movie, a fairy tale, named
Tiefland. It’s ironic; all Leni Riefenstahl ever wanted was to tell fairy tales.

She looks at a photograph of herself, one taken a half-century ago. In it she is peering over folded arms, her shoulders are bare, her delicately beautiful face luminous–Germany’s Garbo, she was
called–the woman at her most gorgeous. Riefenstahl taps the photograph. ”They killed me then,” she explains. ”I am a ghost.” Before I died. . . .

When World War II ended and the true horror of the Nazi regime–Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau- was revealed to the world, thousands of Germans were called to account for their associations, great or small, with the fascist government: There was execution for some, imprisonment for others, self-exile for a few, living ghosthood for Leni Riefenstahl. Has anyone else ever posed the question of an artist’s justification quite like Riefenstahl? The celluloid artifacts from the ’30s and ’40s cannot tell us for sure how much it was that she served herself or served art or served Adolf Hitler.•

This video is a really interesting 1965 CBC interview with the wonderful, terrible Riefenstahl, before she assumed her petulant late-life posture, still rationalizing but not yet resentful.

____________________________________

alan-abel-033109-lg

A funny and prescient piece of performance art by the great prankster Alan Abel, a blend of Lenny Bruce and Allen Funt, in which he responded to an ad placed by a 1999 HBO show seeking men willing to discuss their genitalia. Abel presented himself as a 57-year-old musician with a micro-penis. The hoaxer was ridiculing the early days of Reality TV, in which soft-headed pseudo-documentaries were offered to the public by cynical producers who didn’t exactly worry about veracity. Things have gotten only dicier since, as much of our culture, including news, makes no attempt at objective truth, instead encouraging individuals to create the reality that comforts or flatters them. Language is NSFW, unless you work in a gloryhole.

____________________________________

giac4

Alanna Nash’s 1997 NYT article covered the making of the HBO biopic about Gia Carangi, recalling how uncomfortable the model was in the clothes the industry laid out for her. In retrospect, I’m sure the paper wishes it hadn’t referred to her as an “aggressive lesbian.” An excerpt:

In the late 70’s, as the dark-haired, dark-eyed teen-age daughter of a South Philadelphia hoagie shop owner, Gia began modeling almost by accident. A local photographer saw her on the dance floor and asked her to pose. Soon she was sought out as a startling alternative to the blond, blue-eyed standard of the day, and by the time she was 18, when she landed her first major advertisement, for Gianni Versace, she was earning $100,000 a year. In 1980, after she had become the ”top girl” at Wilhelmina Models in New York, she was expected to earn five times that much.

But inside, haute couture’s reigning ideal of feminine beauty felt like a fraud. Away from the camera, she dressed in black leather motorcycle jackets and men’s apparel from vintage clothing stores. She was an aggressive lesbian, coming on to models who roomed with her on faraway photo shoots. And once her drug problem got out of hand, she funneled her anger into frightening macho behavior, jumping through a car windshield when she found a female lover with a male friend, and pulling a knife on anyone she thought had slighted her.

When the track marks on her arms started showing up in pictures (other models called her Sister Morphine), only Mr. Scavullo continued to use her. Toward the end of her life, she was reduced to selling jeans in a Pennsylvania shopping mall and finally to living on the streets of New York.

In her prime, Gia sparked a rough-and-tumble reputation for walking out of sessions when a photographer kept her waiting, or when the hypocrisy of an assignment ticked her off. But to some, her free-spirited attitude was symptomatic of her search for truth, and every bit as seductive as her beauty. It’s that attitude that Ms. Jolie, the 22-year-old daughter of Jon Voight, hoped to get on film.

”When she’s free and just being herself, she’s unbelievable; that’s the tragedy of her story,” Ms. Jolie adds, sitting in her trailer beneath a poster bemoaning the death of Sid Vicious, the heroin-addicted bass player of the Sex Pistols. ”You think, ‘God, she didn’t need drugs — she was a drug.’ ”•

This 1978 video is a fun look inside the studio of legendary fashion and portrait photographer Francesco Scavullo, as he worked with the star-crossed model, a complicated subject to be sure.

stevejobsani

It bothers me to no end that Ron Howard’s Cinderella Man depicts boxer Max Baer as a semi-psychotic villain for the sake of narrative convenience. It’s cinematic license taken to an ugly extreme.

In general, the Hollywood biopic is a troubling compromise that will satisfy no one completely–or at least it shouldn’t. The best-case scenario is that you come away with some sort of an impressionistic truth but realize that, no, Richard Nixon never made a drunken, late-night phone call to David Frost.

Perhaps each film should be labeled with a Surgeon General-ish warning: “Believing the events of this film are true can be injurious to history.” That agreement has always been tacit, but I can’t tell you how many people over the years have cited the “facts” in Oliver Stone’s overwrought bullshit JFK. There’s really no easy answer.

Steven Levy, who reported on Steve Jobs and knew him, was troubled by his portrayal in the new Aaron Sorkin-Danny Boyle film. In a Backchannel Q&A, he interviewed the former about writing a screenplay on an actual historical figure. An excerpt:

Steven Levy:

Let’s take a specific example of history and fabrication. In the first act, you have Steve’s obsession with the 1983 Time Magazine story about him. You’re right to zero in on that — he was complaining about that when I interviewed him for Rolling Stone before the Macintosh launch, and he was complaining about it 20 years later.

Aaron Sorkin:

That’s right.

Steven Levy:

But you took it a step farther. In your screenplay, someone at Apple ordered boxes of the magazine and was going to place one on every seat in the shareholder’s meeting until someone figured out it would make Steve crazy. In real life, that didn’t happen.

Aaron Sorkin:

Right. That’s exactly the kind of thing I don’t mind making up. Here is what’s true, here is the important truth. As a matter of happy coincidence, Walter Isaacson, who was at Time Magazine in 1983 when all this happened, was able to tell me that Steve was never in the conversation for Man of the Year. Steve had always blamed Dan Kottke for spilling the beans in that article about Steve having to take a paternity test and that whole situation with Lisa and believed that was the reason why he didn’t get the cover. But, as Walter pointed out, it had nothing to do with Kottke — if you look at the cover, it’s a sculpture of a man at a desk with a computer, and that sculpture would have had to have been commissioned months and months in advance. In fact, the sculptor himself is a well known guy whose name I forget.

So that information is something that I want to use. I want to use it to introduce the paternity issue, I want to use it because it’s going to pay off in the third act both when Joanna [Hoffman] is giving a demonstration of his reality distortion field… And the final payoff is that Lisa, who now has Internet access at school, has read it — has read about her father denying that he’s not her father.

So I never worried that what the audience was going to go away with was there were cartons and cartons of Time Magazine backstage at this event. It didn’t seem to be important that the audience gets that right or wrong, that it was a fact of history. It has no negative effect on anyone’s life. You can’t say, who was the idiot who put those cartons of Time Magazine backstage? But that [represented] something truer and I felt this was an interesting way to dramatize it.•

Tags: , ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »