Science/Tech

You are currently browsing the archive for the Science/Tech category.

Among the casualties of climate change–us, perhaps?–may well be the glass skyscraper, so sleek and inviting and environmentally irresponsible. From BBC Magazine:

“Glass buildings are popular – not just because of their striking appearance but for the views they boast, and the increased light they let in.

When German architect Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe designed what is said to be the world’s first glass skyscraper in 1921, he associated the glass facade with purity and renewal. Later in the century, British architect Richard Rogers praised glass buildings because of their social worth. Glass walls enabled even employees working in the basement to benefit from reflected natural light and dissolved barriers between a cramped indoor office space and the greenery outside.

Companies like to give the impression of a democratic working environment – open-plan and with floor-to-ceiling windows, so that all employees, not just the boss, benefit from the view.

However, as concerns over global warming have become more widespread, so the glass structure has come under scrutiny. …

Glass lets out and lets in a lot of heat. A vast amount of energy is required for an office full of people to remain cool in the UAE and to stay warm in the snowstorms of Toronto.

Governments are now so concerned by the long-term impact of ‘solar gain’ – the extent to which a building absorbs sunlight and heats up – that they have introduced strict regulations around shape and structure.”

Before portable computing was the thing, New Yorkers used to make fun of Los Angeles for its post-Hippie oddness and the Dream Factory it powered. But the one-liners about California are now pointed northward, at a new kind of dreaming, even if the joke is really on the rest of us. In New York magazine, Jessica Pressler has fun with the whiz kids behind the smartphone-enabled laundry service Washio, while taking broader aim at America’s supposed best and brightest, who’ve descended on Silicon Valley to get rich quick organizing the minutiae of our lives–by making problems disappear, if only briefly. An excerpt about the company that delivers free cookies with your clean clothes:

“Remember the scrub board? One imagines people were thrilled when that came along and they could stop beating garments on rocks, but then someone went ahead and invented the washing machine, and everyone had to have that, followed by the electric washing machine, and then the services came along where, if you had enough money, you could pay someone to wash your clothes for you, and eventually even this started to seem like a burden—all that picking up and dropping off—and the places offering delivery, well, you had to call them, and sometimes they had accents, and are we not living in the modern world? ‘We had this crazy idea,’ says [Jordan] Metzner, ‘that someone should press a button on their phone and someone will come and pick up their laundry.’

So Washio made it thus. For a while, this was pleasing. But in the hubs and coastal cities of Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., and San Francisco—especially San Francisco—new innovations are dying from the day they are born, and laundry delivered with a fresh-baked cookie is no longer quite enough. There’s a term for this. It’s called the hedonic treadmill.

Fortunately, the employees of Washio are on their toes. ‘What if we did bananas?’ Nadler suggested. Everyone laughed.

Metzner held up a small brown bag featuring a silhouette of a flower and a clean lowercase font. ‘I’ve been talking to the CEO of NatureBox,’ he said. ‘It’s like a Birchbox for healthy treats. Every month they send you nuts and …’

“Banana chips?” said Brittany Barrett, whose job as Washio’s community manager includes cookie selection. Everyone laughed, again.

Metzner looked down at the bag. ‘Flax crostini,’ he said. ‘I think it’s a much better value proposition than a cookie.’ He looked at the bag again. ‘What is a flax crostini?’

We are living in a time of Great Change, and also a time of Not-So-Great Change. The tidal wave of innovation that has swept out from Silicon Valley, transforming the way we communicate, read, shop, and travel, has carried along with it an epic shit-ton of digital flotsam. Looking around at the newly minted billionaires behind the enjoyable but wholly unnecessary Facebook and WhatsApp, Uber and Nest, the brightest minds of a generation, the high test-scorers and mathematically inclined, have taken the knowledge acquired at our most august institutions and applied themselves to solving increasingly minor First World problems. The marketplace of ideas has become one long late-night infomercial. Want a blazer embedded with GPS technology? A Bluetooth-controlled necklace? A hair dryer big enough for your entire body? They can be yours! In the rush to disrupt everything we have ever known, not even the humble crostini has been spared.”

Tags: , ,

A great 1963 episode of The Sky at Night featuring Arthur C. Clarke, who guessed the timeline of the U.S. moon landing almost exactly but was wrong to think the Russians would get there first. We’re still waiting for those domed bases on the moon and Mars shown on this program.

Tags: ,

One quick exchange about life out there–out there–from a Reddit Ask Me Anything with theoretical physicist Sean Carroll:

Question:

Does the fact that we exist now, in a 7 billion person community, mean that it is very unlikely that “intelligent life” will someday exist in an interconnected civilization of say a billion earths (with 1019 people)?

Sean Carroll:

I don’t think so. Maybe technologically advanced life is fairly rare, appearing on average once per galaxy per ten billion years. Then we would be at the beginning, but the future could have many more civilizations.

But honestly, we have no idea. Some epistemic humility is in order here.”

Tags:

Technological positivist Marc Andreessen was Russ Roberts’ guest on a really good installment of the EconTalk podcast. The Netscape founder and venture capitalist sees the world as moving in the right direction in the macro, perhaps giving short shrift to those sinking in the short-term and mid-term turmoil that attends transformation. Notes on myriad discussion topics.

  • Google. Andreessen details how one of the most powerful companies on Earth had plenty of luck on its way to market dominance and its position as a latter-day Bell Labs. The search giant could have collapsed early on or been purchased, with Larry Page and Sergey Brin winding up as, say, Yahoo! middle managers. (“A fate worse than death,” as the host cleverly sums it up.) The guest recalls a fellow venture capital player calling the chief Google guys the “two most arrogant founders” he’d ever met.
  • Jobs lost to automation. The guest believes that with the delivery of smartphones into the hands of (eventually) seven billion people, that we’re at the tipping point of an economic boom and great job creation. He doesn’t qualify his remarks by saying that we’re in for rough times in the short run with jobs because of robotics. Andreesen also doesn’t address the possibility that we could have both an economic boom and a jobs shortfall.
  • Bitcoin. He’s over the moon for the crypto-currency company, saying it’s as revolutionary as the personal computer or the Internet. That seems like way too much hyperbole.
  • MOOCs. Andreesen points out that good universities will never be able to expand to meet a growing global population, so online courses will be essential if we’re to avoid a disastrous educational collapse.
  • Political upheavals. The one cloud the Netscape founder sees on the horizon is a barrage of political upheavals that will destabilize sections of the globe at times.
  • Journalism. Andreessen is sanguine about the future of journalism, believing that companies will adjust to post-monopolistic competition. He points out formerly profitable things about newspapers (classified ads, sports scores, movie times, etc.) that have been cannibalized by the Internet without guessing what will replace them for those faltering companies. If his argument was that nothing need replace them and these erstwhile powerful news corporations were no longer necessary since news distribution is now diffuse, I think that would probably be a stronger argument than suggesting that all but a few such companies are salvageable.•

 

Tags: , , ,

From the August 12, 1910 Brooklyn Daily Eagle:

Cincinnati–Surgeons at the City Hospital believe that John Lohray, a cooper, who applied for treatment last night, has the largest nose in the world. The ponderous nasal appendage is 6 3/4 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide. It hangs over his lips and interferes when he eats or talks. Lohray is suffering from elephantiasis of the nose. The nose will be amputated.”

Tags:

Valerie Solanas was apparently never told that you don’t shoot the messenger. I was completely unaware until watching this video that she shot Andy Warhol the day before Sirhan Sirhan assassinated RFK. In the clip, Warhol and Candy Darling, who, it is written, came from out on the Island, preen for friends and media on a docked boat chartered by Jane Fonda. The line about Warhol’s Superstars “almost living” is striking. Isn’t that what we all dedicate a good portion of our lives to now, with our icons and our selfies and our reality stars? It’s great that everything is freer, but isn’t it surprising what we’ve done with the freedom, the endless channels? It’s life, yes, and it’s almost life.

Tags: , , , ,

Two pieces of 1970s propaganda for Libertarianism, an -ism I find perplexing.

A clip from the 1978 short, “Libra,” which imagined a 21st-century Libertarian space utopia, population 10,000, including its market-loving African-American leader. Um, wow.

This special version of 1975 film adaptation, The Incredible Bread Machine, is introduced by then-Secretary of the Treasury, William E. Simon, and features commentary by Milton Friedman and some of the book and film’s creators.

A really strange artifact, this 30-minute documentary directed by Theo Kamecke attempted to make Libertarianism sexy. The film’s writers (who appear onscreen as themselves) are six young, long-haired, hip proponents of the philosophy whose very presence sends the message that youth culture and free markets are not mutually exclusive. An incredible oversimplification of complex political and economic issues, the film contains the type of jaw-dropping anti-government propaganda that would give Ayn Rand a huge boner. But it’s still an odd and interesting remnant.

Tags: ,

Gerontologist Aubrey de Grey, who aims high and communicates well, always makes for good copy, whether you agree or not with his optimistic view of human life without death. From an interview by Gian Volpicelli at Vice:

Question:

Do you think that people may be starting to think that ageing is the real enemy?

Aubrey de Grey:

I do think so, yes. The things that I’ve been saying for years are finally beginning to get understood. People are understanding that diseases of old age are not really diseases: They are aspects of ageing, side effects of being alive. If you want to cure them, what you’ll have to cure is to be alive in the first place—but you can’t actually do it. So we’ll have to take a preventative maintenance approach. That means that we’ll have to identify the various types of molecular and cellular damage that the body does to itself as a side effect of its normal metabolic operation. Once you’ve identified them, which has already been done, you have to find a way to repair that damage and prevent it from developing into a pathology of old age. That’s what I’m working on.

Question:

What are you really trying to achieve? Longevity or immortality?

Aubrey de Grey:

Well, first of all, any longevity benefit that I may achieve would be a side effect. I don’t work on longevity, I work on health. And it just happens that, historically, the main thing that kills people is…not being healthy. So healthier people will likely live longer.

Question:

How much longer?

Aubrey de Grey:

It depends on how much longer we can keep people healthy. The best we can say at the moment is that the human body is a machine. Therefore, it ought to be the case that we can have the same kind of impact on the human body that we already have now on simple manmade machines, like cars. So, as I said, we can rely on preventative maintenance: repairing any damage before it makes the doors fall off. It seems to work really well with cars; we’ve got one-hundred-year-old cars around now. So, if you do sufficient maintenance, the sky’s the limit. We should be able to maintain the human body in good health indefinitely, however long we like.

Question:

So…it’s immortality, right?

Aubrey de Grey:

Don’t use the word immortality when you talk about my work. It’s taken; it’s a religious word. Immortality means zero risk of death from any cause, but I don’t work on stopping people from being hit by trucks. I work on keeping them healthy.”•

Tags: ,

We will all be freed from toil, but freed to what? How do you reconcile a free-market economy with a highly automated one? From Angelo Young at IBT Times:

“As the 106,000 contract workers who lost their Nike jobs in the past year can attest, apparel manufacturers have decided that it’s cheaper to invest in technology than to hire even the world’s lowest-paid workers.

The relentless move toward industrial automation is undercutting vulnerable workers around the globe.

For years, China and India offered manufacturers a low-wage workforce. Production recently expanded around Asia to countries like Cambodia, Bangladesh and Vietnam as well.

But now, automation is allowing manufacturing to stop chasing cheap labor altogether. Automated production machines cut costs and immunize manufacturers from the dangers of a labor shortage.

‘I think this is going to accelerate,’ said Erik Brynjolfsson, professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management. ‘What we have is a situation where robots and automation do more and more tasks that are being done by low-wage labor in Asia and elsewhere in the world. People involved in repetitive work are very vulnerable to what’s happening.'”

Tags: ,

I wonder if we were to do a historical hack of the American Revolution and supplied both sides, redcoats and turncoats, with the diffuse and interconnected technology of 2014, if it would have made the uprising’s stunning success more possible, less possible or impossible. It would be fun to reverse engineer that upheaval along modern tech standards.

On a related note, David Runciman of the Guardian wonders whether politics or technology will rule our future. I think it will be tougher and tougher for legislation to control too many things as we move forward, especially if the Internet of Things becomes a real thing. The opening of Runciman’s well-considered piece, which has some interesting thoughts about China’s technocratic rule:

“The most significant revolution of the 21st century so far is not political. It is the information technology revolution. Its transformative effects are everywhere. In many places, rapid technological change stands in stark contrast to the lack of political change. Take the United States. Its political system has hardly changed at all in the past 25 years. Even the moments of apparent transformation – such as the election of Obama in 2008 – have only reinforced how entrenched the established order is: once the excitement died away, Obama was left facing the same constrained political choices. American politics is stuck in a rut. But the lives of American citizens have been revolutionised over the same period. The birth of the web and the development of cheap and efficient devices through which to access it have completely altered the way people connect with each other. Networks of people with shared interests, tastes, concerns, fetishes, prejudices and fears have sprung up in limitless varieties. The information technology revolution has changed the way human beings befriend each other, how they meet, date, communicate, medicate, investigate, negotiate and decide who they want to be and what they want to do. Many aspects of our online world would be unrecognisable to someone who was transplanted here from any point in the 20th century. But the infighting and gridlock in Washington would be all too familiar.

This isn’t just an American story.”

Tags:

The Apple Store sells ambience, sure, but at the heart of the experience is an array of amazing products. Most shops in the future will probably try to similarly offer an “experience” and diversify their offerings, but will it work if their selling just things and not the thing? From “What Will Shopping Look Like in the Future,” Mae Anderson’s AP report:

“Forrester analyst Sucharita Mulpuru says stores of the future will be more about services, like day care, veterinary services and beauty services. Services that connect online and offline shopping could increase as well, with more drive-thru pickup and order-online, pick-up-in-store services. Checkout also will be self-service or with cashiers using computer tablets.

Some stores are taking self-service further: A store in Seattle called Hointer displays clothing not in piles or on racks but as one piece hanging at a time, like a gallery.

Shoppers just touch their smartphones to a coded tag on the item and then select a color and size on their phone. Technology in the store keeps track of the items, and by the time a shopper is ready to try them on, they’re already at the dressing room.

If the shopper doesn’t like an item, he tosses it down a chute, which automatically removes the item from the shopper’s online shopping cart. The shopper keeps the items that he or she wants, which are purchased automatically when leaving the store, no checkout involved.

Nadia Shouraboura, Hointer’s CEO, says once shoppers get used to the process, they’re hooked.

‘They end up buying a lot more, they’re laughing and playing with it,’ she says.”

Tags: ,

Via the always fun Delancey Place, an excerpt about the centuries-old birth of the newspaper from Andrew Pettegree’s The Invention of News:

“The real transformation of the news market [which prior to the printing press had been oral or laboriously hand-written] would come from the development of a news market in print. This would occur only haltingly after the first invention of printing in the mid-fifteenth century. For half a century or more thereafter printers would follow a very conservative strategy, concentrating on publishing editions of the books most familiar from the medieval manuscript tradition. But in the sixteenth century they would also begin to open up new markets — and one of these was a market for news. News fitted ideally into the expanding market for cheap print, and it swiftly became an important commodity. This burgeoning wave of news reporting was of an entirely different order. It took its tone from the new genre of pamphlets that had preceded it: the passionate advocacy that had accompanied the Reformation. … News also became, for the first time, part of the entertainment industry. What could be more entertaining than the tale of some catastrophe in a far-off place, or a grisly murder?

Naturally the elites sought to control this new commercial market, to ensure that the messages delivered by these news books would show them in a good light. Printers who wanted their shops to remain open were careful to report only the local prince’s victories and triumphs, not the battlefield reverses that undermined his reputation and authority. Those printers who co-operated willingly could rely on help in securing access to the right texts. … From remarkably early in the age of the first printed books Europe’s rulers invested considerable effort in putting their point of view, and explaining their policies, to their citizens. …

The divisions within Europe brought about by the Reformation were a further complicating factor: the news vendors of Protestant and Catholic nations would increasingly reproduce only news that came from their side of the confessional divide. News therefore took on an increasingly sectarian character. All this led to distortions tending to obscure the true course of events. … The purveyors of the news pamphlets had a clear incentive to make these accounts as lively as possible. This raised real questions as to their reliability. How could a news report possibly be trusted if the author exaggerated to increase its commercial appeal?”

Tags:

The opening of Randy Rieland’s a Smithsonian post about MIT’s Skylar Tibbits, who aims to one-up 3D printing before it even becomes popularized:

“These days, 3D printing seems to be at the core of most new new research ventures, whether it’s developing ways to print entire meals or recreating facial features to repair a patient’s face.

But Skylar Tibbits wants to up the ante: He’s hoping 4D printing will be the thing of the not-so-far future.

The name for his concept, Tibbits admits, was a bit lighthearted at first. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Tibbits and researchers from the firms Stratasys and Autodesk Inc were trying to come up with a way of describing the objects they were creating on 3D printers—objects that not only could be printed, but thanks to geometric code, could also later change shape and transform on their own.

The name stuck, and now the process they developed—which turns code into ‘smart objects’ that can self-assemble or change shape when confronted with a change in its environment—could very well pop up in a number of industries, from construction to athletic wear.”

Tags: ,

Eric H. Cline, archaeologist and historian, has written a new book, 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed, about the end of the Bronze Age. He just did an Ask Me Anything at Reddit. A few exchanges follow.

________________________

Question:

In what you’ve studied, what’s the most interesting reason/way that a civilization collapsed? Is there anything in the story of that collapse that you think that we could take a lesson from today?

Eric H. Cline:

I’ve only studied the Late Bronze Age collapse, but in my view all of the civilizations were interlinked and so I argue that there a lot of interesting reasons/ways that brought down the civilizations, ranging from climate change, drought, famine, earthquakes, internal rebellions, etc. There may or may not be lessons that we can learn; some people reading my book are intrigued by the fact that there is evidence for climate change back then, just before/as the civilizations were collapsing.

______________________

Question:

What’s your most controversial opinion?

Eric H. Cline:

That we’re never going to find Noah’s Ark. That pisses off more people than you might imagine…

________________________

Question:

What are your thoughts on Jesus?

Eric H. Cline:

He was a nice Jewish boy.

________________________

Question:

The title of your book is very intriguing. Can you explain the significance of this year and how you pinpointed 1177 B.C. as the year that Bronze Age Civilization collapsed?

Eric H. Cline:

Thanks for a great question. Let me simply quote from my book by way of answering:

“The end of the Late Bronze Age in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean regions, an area that extended from Italy and Greece to Egypt and Mesopotamia, was a fluid event, taking place over the course of several decades and perhaps even up to a century, not an occurrence tied to a specific year. But the eighth year of the reign of the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses III—1177 BC, to be specific, according to the chronology currently used by most modern Egyptologists—stands out and is the most representative of the entire collapse. For it was in that year, according to the Egyptian records, that the Sea Peoples came sweeping through the region, wreaking havoc for a second time. It was a year when great land and sea battles were fought in the Nile delta; a year when Egypt struggled for its very survival; a year by which time some of the high-flying civilizations of the Bronze Age had already come to a crashing halt. In fact, one might argue that 1177 BC is to the end of the Late Bronze Age as AD 476 is to the end of Rome and the western Roman Empire. That is to say, both are dates to which modern scholars can conveniently point as the end of a major era. Italy was invaded and Rome was sacked several times during the fifth century AD, including in AD 410 by Alaric and the Visigoths and in AD 455 by Geiseric and the Vandals. There were also many other reasons why Rome fell, in addition to these attacks, and the story is much more complex, as any Roman historian will readily attest. However, it is convenient, and considered acceptable academic shorthand, to link the invasion by Odoacer and the Ostragoths in AD 476 with the end of Rome’s glory days. The end of the Late Bronze Age and the transition to the Iron Age is a similar case, insofar as the collapse and transition was a rolling event, taking place between approximately 1225 and 1175 BC or, in some places, as late as 1130 BC. However, the second invasion by the Sea Peoples, ending in their cataclysmic fight against the Egyptians under Ramses III during the eighth year of his reign, in 1177 BC, is a reasonable benchmark and allows us to put a finite date on a rather elusive pivotal moment and the end of an age. We can say with certainty that the far-reaching civilizations that were still flourishing in the Aegean and the ancient Near East in 1225 BC had begun to vanish by 1177 BC and were almost completely gone by 1130 BC. The mighty Bronze Age kingdoms and empires were gradually replaced by smaller city-states during the following Early Iron Age. Consequently, our picture of the Mediterranean and Near Eastern world of 1200 BC is quite different from that of 1100 BC and completely different from that of 1000 BC.”•

Tags:

Amazon is building a trio of biospheres–the kind filled with crazy laughter, not crazy ants–in Seattle to serve as new company headquarters. Unlike Google and Nintendo, which live in that city’s suburbs, Bezos’ bunch are heading downtown, bringing excitement to the locals but also fears that they’ll be priced out of the fun. From Colin Marshall at the Guardian:

“Pending the completion of the towers, Amazon’s current South Lake Union operations go on in clusters of lower-rise buildings whose purpose you couldn’t necessarily surmise through a streetcar window. But other, subtler clues identify their function: the sudden preponderance of blue Amazon badges and unflattering Amazon logo-emblazoned hooded sweatshirts on the street; the nearby dentist’s and even masseuse’s offices advertising their acceptance of Amazon health insurance; the recorded voice inside the streetcar itself advertising the upcoming stop as ‘sponsored by Amazon.com.’

Nobody could ever mistake Microsoft and Nintendo’s Redmond campuses, surrounded for miles by little more than grass and parking, for cities. Even the most Amazonian blocks of South Lake Union, by contrast, never feel less than urban in form. Maybe it has to do with the nearness of the Seattle skyline, or with all the construction adding to the bustle, or with the fact that people actually live here, not just sleep on the plush employee-lounge couches. Still, much of it struck me as slightly too new, and slightly too thought-through; I couldn’t quite shake the feeling of spending time in a company town, albeit a company downtown.

Even in its incomplete state – and even more than America’s older city centres, now coming back to life largely through infusions of high-end shopping – South Lake Union caters to those prepared to spend. You may do it with relative modesty, at the food truck parked at the end of the streetcar line offering kale salads and burgers with bacon jam and jalapeño aioli; you may drop a few dollars more at the speciality hot-chocolate shop or the combined dog bakery and boutique; or you may go all the way and get your teeth capped, purchase a Bang & Olufsen stereo system, and put in an order for an $80,000 electric sports car at the neighbourhood Tesla showroom.”

Tags: ,

One unintended consequence to driverless cars and their growing ability to avoid traffic infractions is that the money from tickets often goes to fund law enforcement. Of course, fewer road accidents and, say, the decriminalization of drugs, would lead to less of a need for a large police budget. From Colin Neagle at Network World:

“Shortly after the state of Washington voted to legalize recreational marijuana late last year, opponents made a very interesting, if somewhat counterintuitive, argument against legalized pot – law enforcement would miss out on the huge revenue stream of seized assets, property, and cash from pot dealers in the state.

Justice Department data shows that seizures in marijuana-related cases nationwide totaled $1 billion from 2002 to 2012, out of the $6.5 billion total seized in all drug busts over that period. This money often goes directly into the budgets of the law enforcement agencies that seized it. One drug task force in Snohomish County, Washington, reduced its budget forecast by 15% after the state voted to legalize marijuana, the Wall Street Journal reported in January. In its most fruitful years, that lone task force had seen more than $1 million in additional funding through seizures from marijuana cases alone, according to the report.

Naturally, this dynamic is something law enforcement either is or should already be preparing for as driverless cars make their way onto the roads. Just as drug cops will lose the income they had seized from pot dealers, state and local governments will need to account for a drastic reduction in fines from traffic violations as autonomous cars stick to the speed limit.

Google’s driverless cars have now combined to drive more than 700,000 miles on public roads without receiving one citation, The Atlantic reported this week. While this raises a lot of questions about who is responsible to pay for a ticket issued to a speeding autonomous car – current California law would have the person in the driver’s seat responsible, while Google has said the company that designed the car should pay the fine – it also hints at a future where local and state governments will have to operate without a substantial source of revenue.”

Tags:

The Los Angeles family home of Ray Bradbury, who thought it imperative that humans leave Earth, has just been put on the market at a cool $1.495 million. From Carolyn Kellogg at the Los Angeles Times:

“His three-bedroom, 2500-square-foot house, built in 1937, is painted a cheery yellow. It has three bathrooms, hardwood floors, and sits on a generously sized 9,500-square-foot lot. It is loaded with original details, the sort that were part of the texture of the author’s daily life.

‘I’m surrounded by my metaphors,’ he explained in a 2001 video shot in the house’s converted basement, which was crammed with books and ephemera. ‘I realized, all this ‘junk’ here, I couldn’t live without.’

Around 1960, Bradbury and his wife, Maggie, bought the house in Cheviot Hills for a few reasons: Their family was growing, Bradbury was making more money writing, and it had the kind of space writers crave.

‘Ray has saved everything since his first birthday,’ Maggie told The Times in 1985. ‘I try to throw out newspapers and magazines and whatever can be thrown out. Ray is a pack rat. He refuses to let anything go. When we bought our house 25 years ago, it had a large basement, and that was the irresistible ingredient, because we needed a place where Ray could store everything he refuses to throw away.’

For many years, Bradbury kept an office in Beverly Hills where he wrote (and sometimes napped). When he got older, he used the basement space in Cheviot Hills to write. ‘I feel very comfortable here,’ he said in another 2001 video clip.”

_________________________

A peek inside Bradbury’s office, 1968:

Tags: , ,

Sir Edmund Hillary, who scaled Everest in 1953 and searched for the Abominable Snowman in 1961, sitting for an interview on a Canadian talk show in 1977.

Tags:

The electricity that has allowed Google to power an attempt a latter-day Bell Labs has always been ads, and the company wants to make sure it doesn’t run out of juice. Maybe someday the search giant will be making astounding sums of cash from fleets of driverless taxis or brain chips, but for now it needs to get ads to your eyeballs. From Rolfe Winkler at the WSJ

“Advertising may be coming to your thermostat and lots of other strange places, courtesy of Google.

In a December letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was disclosed Tuesday, the search giant said that it could be serving ads and other content on ‘refrigerators, car dashboards, thermostats, glasses, and watches, to name just a few possibilities.’

Google made the statement to help justify why it shouldn’t disclose revenue generated from mobile devices, a figure the SEC had requested and that companies like Facebook and Twitter both disclose. Google argued that it doesn’t make sense to break out mobile revenue since the definition of mobile will ‘continue to evolve’ as more ‘smart’ devices roll out.

‘Our expectation is that users will be using our services and viewing our ads on an increasingly wide diversity of devices in the future,’ the company said in the filing.”

Tags:

The opening question of an Ask Me Anything that Gawker’s Hamilton Nolan moderated with journalist Ken Silverstein, author of The Secret World of Oil:

Question:

Is the oil industry actually more corrupt than other major global industries? If so, why?

Ken Silverstein:

Yes, it actually is. The only industry that’s remotely as corrupt is weapons and partly for the same reason. If you’re selling widgets or paper towels or T-shirts, you make a relatively small amount of money on a lot of contracts. When you’re in the oil (or weapons) business, the stakes are a lot higher on individual deals. You may be chasing an energy concession worth tens of billions of dollars that could be generating revenue, and profits, for decades. That encourages you to use any tactic that will reel in that deal, and that often means paying off government officials. Keith Myers, a London-based consultant and former BP executive, told me, ‘Corruption isn’t endemic in the energy business because people in the industry are more corrupt or have lower morals but because you’re dealing with huge sums of capital. A million dollars here or there doesn’t make any difference to the overall economics of a project, but it can make a huge difference to the economics of a few individuals who can delay or stop or approve the project.’

A related reason is that a lot of the energy resources that we want to run our factories and heat our homes and fill our gas tanks is sitting in Third World countries headed by corrupt governments. Or as our illustrious former vice president and Halliburton exec, Dick Cheney, once put it, ‘The good Lord didn’t see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratic regimes.'” 


Tags: , ,

Joy, peace and a vegetable diet are ingredients of a good life but not a prescription for an everlasting one. James B. Schafer, however, disagreed.

The leader of a Long Island sect, Schafer believed that positive thinking and vegetarianism from birth would not just delay death but defeat it. To prove his point, he and his followers adopted the baby of a struggling waitress in 1939 and announced that the cult’s child-rearing methods would make her immortal. The plug was pulled on the delusional plan a year later when the birth mother sued to regain custody. In 1942, the metaphysician was sentenced to a stint in Sing Sing for larceny. In 1955, Schafer and his wife guaranteed that they would definitely not enjoy days without end when they committed a double suicide.

The following article, from the November 25, 1939 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, details the short-lived immortal baby experiment (a story also covered by the New Yorker).

 

Tags: , ,

In a New York Times report by Benedict Carey about lessons learned at the inaugural Extreme Memory Tournament, which was held recently in San Diego, the upshot is not that some have remarkably elastic recall, but that they thrive at visualization and focus. I would still think, however, that such abilities are more pronounced in some brains than others. An excerpt:

“‘We found that one of the biggest differences between memory athletes and the rest of us,’ said Henry L. Roediger III, the psychologist who led the research team, ‘is in a cognitive ability that’s not a direct measure of memory at all but of attention.’

The technique the competitors use is no mystery.

People have been performing feats of memory for ages, scrolling out pi to hundreds of digits, or phenomenally long verses, or word pairs. Most store the studied material in a so-called memory palace, associating the numbers, words or cards with specific images they have already memorized; then they mentally place the associated pairs in a familiar location, like the rooms of a childhood home or the stops on a subway line.

The Greek poet Simonides of Ceos is credited with first describing the method, in the fifth century B.C., and it has been vividly described in popular books, most recently Moonwalking With Einstein, by Joshua Foer.

Each competitor has his or her own variation. ‘When I see the eight of diamonds and the queen of spades, I picture a toilet, and my friend Guy Plowman,’ said Ben Pridmore, 37, an accountant in Derby, England, and a former champion. ‘Then I put those pictures on High Street in Cambridge, which is a street I know very well.’

As these images accumulate during memorization, they tell an increasingly bizarre but memorable story. ‘I often use movie scenes as locations,’ said James Paterson, 32, a high school psychology teacher in Ascot, near London, who competes in world events. ‘In the movie Gladiator, which I use, there’s a scene where Russell Crowe is in a field, passing soldiers, inspecting weapons.'”

Tags: , , , , ,

From “Electric Avenue,” David M. Levison’s Foreign Affairs piece about how EVs can gain ground on cars powered by internal-combustion engines, a passage about the state’s potential role in reducing automobile emissions to zero:

“If technological progress is coupled with smart government policy, then these high-tech dreams could become everyday reality. When it comes to funding research on alternative-fuel vehicles, the United States has pursued the right strategy. The federal government has wisely avoided putting all its eggs in one basket, instead spreading research grants across a variety of technologies, most of which do not seem terribly promising but each of which has its partisans. Many small bets are more likely to find a winner than a few large ones; this is not the time for a new Manhattan Project or Apollo program.

As for consumer incentives, the U.S. government provides an infant-industry subsidy of $2,500 in tax credits for buyers of plug-in electric vehicles and has in the past provided other subsidies for buyers of fuel-efficient vehicles. Several U.S. states and some foreign countries provide additional subsidies.

A better, although more politically difficult, policy would be to charge those who burn gasoline and diesel fuel for the full economic and social cost of their decision. Right now, pollution is essentially free in the United States; drivers don’t pay anything for the emissions that come from their tailpipes, even if they’re driving a jalopy from the 1970s. If the government were to charge people for the health-damaging pollutants their cars emit and enact a carbon tax, the amount of pollution and carbon dioxide produced would fall. Consumers would drive less, retire their old clunkers, and be more likely to purchase electric vehicles. (An increase in oil prices — due to a lack of new discoveries, increasing demand in the developing world, or something else — would have the same effect.)

The United States already has a modest gas tax, which, although it was not designed for this purpose, does have the side effect of disincentivizing carbon emissions. But many economists favor a full-fledged carbon tax on fuels, the revenue of which could be used to fund environmental agencies’ efforts to mitigate damages from pollution and climate change. It could be offset by tax cuts elsewhere. Yet if raising taxes were politically easy, this would have been done long ago.

The government cannot rely on the gas tax forever. Since its 1919 debut, in Oregon, the tax has come to serve as the main source of road funding at the state and federal levels. Already, transportation funding is beginning to shrink due to improvements in fuel economy, and the Highway Trust Fund is teetering on the brink of insolvency. With the rise of alternative-fuel vehicles, the current funding arrangement will fail.

The immediate solution is for policymakers to take the politically unpopular step of raising the gas tax. In the long run, however, something else will need to be done. There is no reason to move away from the tax now, but as gasoline engines eventually lose market share, the government should think of and organize roads as a public utility, like electricity and natural gas. That would mean making drivers pay user fees, such as a per-mile charge that varied by the time of day and the type of vehicle used.”

Tags:

From “Weighing the Future,” an Economist piece about how the dismal science can frame the argument for sacrificing now to combat climate change when the worst effects might not be felt for centuries:

“But all of these changes will be felt most severely decades or centuries down the road: after our children, and our children’s children, are gone.

That is a nasty complication for economists trying to figure out the most appropriate way to respond to climate change. Some economists, like Martin Weitzman, reckon that significant investment may be justified now as a form of insurance. There is a risk that climate change will happen faster or be more costly than we anticipate, possibly threatening humanity’s very existence. Whether or not it makes sense to pay to cut emissions in order to enjoy the benefits of slower warming, it is worth taking action now in order to reduce the odds of a civilisation-ending outcome.

Though that argument makes quite a lot of sense, it does leave some economists unsatisfied. Surely the costs of warming are high enough that it’s worth cutting emissions to stop it, whether or not it threatens our very existence, right?

It seems like that ought to be the case. But to suss that out, we have to make an assumption about discount rates—that is, how much we, today, should value benefits received well down the line—in order to compare costs today to benefits tomorrow.

If one believes that humanity should take drastic action now even though it might slow economic growth, one has to assume that future costs will be very, very big or that people living today place significant value on benefits realised 50 or 100 or 500 years down the line. And that strikes many dismal scientists as implausible. It is easy enough to imagine that people living today care about benefits that might accrue to them in their old age, or that of their children or grandchildren. But look much beyond a century and the beneficiaries become too distant to count much in our mental calculus.”

Tags:

« Older entries § Newer entries »