"We can now send a not too complicated photograph over very long distances in six to twelve minutes."

“We can now send a not too complicated photograph over very long distances.”

In the early years of the twentieth century, Professor Arthur Korn was conducting pioneering research into the development of the fax, which is still popular in certain places. A German of Jewish descent, the professor fled his home country in 1939 and emigrated to America, where he lived out his life. The opening of a November 24, 1907 New York Times article about Korn’s early telecommunications work, done in a time before world wars were even a thing, which seems to have resulted in the first facsimile ever sent:

“With the recent successful demonstration of Prof. Korn’s invention, by which photographs may be telegraphed from one part of the world to another, it seems not improbable that some day we may be able to see distant views through the aid of a telephone wire in the same way that we can now hear distant sounds.

That, at the first glance, may seem an impossibility; but no more impossible than the idea of telegraphing photographs would have appeared before its actual accomplishment.

The remarkable series of tests which demonstrated the practicability of the new invention took place in the office of The London Mirror on Nov. 7. The machine used in the test had been constructed for The Mirror by M. Carpenter of Paris. The receiving instrument was installed in the Paris office by L’Illustration, one of the leading pictorial journals of France.

Photographs–including one of the King–were both sent and received between London and Paris, a distance of 280 miles, and the eminently satisfactory results which were obtained came as a revelation to the distinguished company. Among the guests were several hundred who are prominent in science, art, politics, and journalism. This was the first time that photographs had been telegraphed from one capital to another, and Prof. Korn, the inventor, was the recipient of many congratulations, 

The first test was the sending of a photograph of King Edward to Paris, the whole operation taking only six minutes, at the end of which time the signal was given that the picture had been admirably reproduced in the Paris offices of L’Illustration.

Then a photograph was transmitted from Paris. A sensitive film was placed on a receiving cylinder, which is inclosed in a box, and as soon as the current was switched on the film began to slowly rotate and receive an exact copy of the film in Paris–an operation which again occupied six minutes.

The receiving film was then taken off the cylinder and an excellent photograph was printed from it amid the applause of the audience.

In a lecture given after the tests had been completed, Prof. Korn explained the working of his new system of photography. ‘We can now,’ he said, ‘send a not too complicated photograph over very long distances in six to twelve minutes. The problem of television, by which distant views are reproduced in a way similar to that by which we now hear distant sounds, has not yet been solved. Many bright minds are working upon it, but the great difficulty is the speed required. This must be a thousand times greater than the highest speed that has yet been obtained with telephotography.”

_______________________

“The picture you wish to have transmitted is taken to a sending station”:

Tags:

We are informed, in part, to stimuli we receive from others, and no matter how strong-minded we are, it plays a role in wiring our brains. Reactions can help form actions, so to speak. A researcher who has done work in the science of facial attractiveness just did an Ask Me Anything on Reddit. A few exchanges follow.

____________________________

Question:

Do you consider your own face attractive?

Answer:

No.

Question:

Is that a gut reaction, or a scientific conclusion? 

Answer:

Well, that was just a quick reply at first…but I would say no based on external feedback and scientific analysis combined. Also, I was also a very good looking kid – and then after puberty, I turned into something totally different…so that was jarring & the change in how I was treated was hard to miss.

____________________________

Question:

Do you think someone can be attractive if they don’t fit exactly within what the science says is best? Have you ever thought someone was beautiful who didn’t fit into what you have researched?

Answer:

Yeah, there are a lot of other factors that can influence things from personality to body. And, subjective perceptions of attractiveness are 30-40% of the equation. The same is true in the opposite direction. People w/ perfect facial features who are depressed (in static photos) will be perceived as less attractive.

____________________________

Question:

What’s your most surprising discovery?

Answer:

The most surprising discovery to me (not in my lab but people I know) is that a man’s body odor (smelled by women) can reveal how symmetrical their faces and bodies are. And, this is often correlated to attractiveness. This was done by making men wear no deodorant and plain t-shirts for 2 weeks while college aged females came in to smell their BO & rate it… fun study. Some follow up studies debunked this slightly & added a few twits, but the gist is the same AFAIK…it’s been a while since I followed this line of research.

____________________________

Question:

I’ve been fascinated by the research into how women choose genetically alike males as mates when they are pregnant or on hormonal birth control (ie body thinks they’re pregnant) but genetically different men as mates when ovulating/not pregnant. And if women mate with a genetically similar partner they are more likely to cheat. It’s that whole good provider vs. good gene dynamic and it’s interesting because it complicates that simplistic theory that males just want to spread genetic material and women just want a provider mate. There’s biological machinations everywhere!

Answer:

Yay – you brought up what I actually worked on directly! I can elaborate on what you brought up or clear it up a little. When women are ovulating, they like the masculine male faced men. When they are on birth control, the preference is wiped out (and having a period on birth control is not a result of ovulation, which men don’t understand). Also, when they are not ovulating, they like the less masculine faces more. People have theorized that the “mate strategy” of a women is to marry a “neutral faced” provider and then have sex with the masculine pool boy or repairman when she’s ovulating. Masculine faced guys have better immune systems, but they are more aggressive and less faithful – so they are not great long term partners. The significance of this (since the 60s with so many women on birth control) may have altered our entire species in a direction that it previously was not headed in. Making the above comments that I did is seen as controversial, but it’s just a theory put out there by evolutionary psychologists.

____________________________

Question:

Is there a particular face shape that is deemed “most attractive”?

Answer:

Are you thinking about “round vs oval vs square”? Those terms are generally not descriptive enough – but I think the best way to answer this is that people with short mid-faces are the most attractive. To determine this for yourself, measure the distance between your pupils. Then, measure the distance between the top of your nose (the midpoint of your eyes), and the middle of your lips. Then divide these two numbers (with the eye number on top and the vertical number on the bottom). The lower the number is, the more compact your midface is and the more attractive you would tend to be. If it is 0.8-1.2 that is good. Outside of that range, it’s not so good…almost universally. Every other “face shape” question has a qualification.

 


Some search-engine keyphrases bringing traffic to Afflictor this week:

  1. paul harvey super bowl commercial
  2. i began to think, maybe each human being lives in a unique world
  3. is pee healthy to drink?
  4. religious cult that drinks human blood
  5. is there meritocracy in america?
  6. how much is an original superman comic book worth?
  7. bubba watson hovercraft golf cart
  8. center that mates beautiful people to other beautiful people
  9. 1967 michelangelo antonioni playboy interview
  10. rod serling demonstrating the video game pong

 

Afflictor: Believing this week was like a marathon without a finish line.

Afflictor: Believing that most of this week felt like a marathon without a finish line.

Capt. Roald Amundsen, the great Norwegian explore of polar regions, is profiled in this classic 1909 photograph. The arduous journeys that he and his rivals undertook to unravel Earth’s mysteries were large and heroic, but in a March 11, 1912 New York Times article, Amundsen discussed the smaller details of being an explorer that usually get lost in the history books. Excerpts about dog-eating and tooth-pulling:

“With regard to food, we had full rations all the way, but in that climate full rations are a very different thing to having as much as a man can eat. There seems little limit to one’s eating powers when doing a hard sledging journey. However, on the return journey we had not merely full rations, but as much as we could eat from the depots after passing 86 degrees.

‘The first dogs were eaten on the journey to the pole in 85 1/2 degrees, when twenty-four were killed. In spite of the fact that they had not always been able to obtain full meals, the dogs were fat and proved most delicious eating. It is anything but a real hardship to eat dog meat. …

‘Washing was a luxury never indulged in on the journey, nor was there any shaving, but as the beard has to be kept short to prevent ice accumulating from one’s breath, a beard-cutting machine which we had taken along proved invaluable.

‘Another article taken was a tooth extractor, and this also proved valuable, for one man had a tooth which became so bad that it was absolutely essential that it should be pulled out, and this could hardly have been done without a proper instrument.””

 

Tags:

Sometimes you don’t want to be first in the world. This is one of those times. Fundawear from Durex. Do NOT masturbate during an electrical storm.

It’s difficult sometimes to think about futuristic living, all sleek and clean and perfect. Yesterday morning I sat down on a subway car next to a guy who smelled like a toilet had backed up onto a corpse in the bathroom of a diarrhea factory. Then he started snoring. 

But some among us can see a future, or something resembling it, that is more orderly. From a Foreign Policy piece about the predictions in Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen’s just-published book, The New Digital Age:

Futuristic living:

Your apartment is an electronic orchestra, and you are the conductor. With simple flicks of the wrist and spoken instructions, you can control temperature, humidity, ambient music and lighting. You are able to skim through the day’s news on translucent screens while a freshly cleaned suit is retrieved from your automated closet because your calendar indicates an important meeting today. You head to the kitchen for breakfast and the translucent news display follows, as a projected hologram hovering just in front of you, using motion detection, as you walk down the hallway…. Your central computer system suggests a list of chores your housekeeping robots should tackle today, all of which you approve. It further suggests that, since your coffee supply is projected to run out next Wednesday, you consider purchasing a certain larger-size container that it noticed currently on sale online. Alternatively, it offers a few recent reviews of other coffee blends your friends enjoy.”

Tags: ,

From Robert Kuttner’s New York Review of Books piece about David Graeber’s Debt: The First 5,000 Years, a passage about the inequality of debt relief:

“The double standard in debt relief that favored large merchants, present at the creation of bankruptcy law in 1706, persists today in many different forms. It gets surprisingly little attention in the debt debates. Despite the tacit assumption that ‘surely one has to pay one’s debts,’ the evasion of repayment is both widespread and selective. Corporate executives routinely walk away from their debts via Chapter 11 of the national bankruptcy law when that seems expedient. Morality scarcely enters the conversation—this is strictly business.

Even more galling is the fact that the executives who drove the company into the ground often keep control by means of a doctrine known as debtor-in- possession. A judge simply permits the company to write off old debts, while creditors collect so many cents on the dollar out of available assets. Every major airline has now been through bankruptcy, and US Airways has gone in and out of Chapter 11 twice. In this process, all creditors are not created equal. Since banks typically have liens on the aircraft, bankers get paid ahead of others. Major losers are employees and retirees, since Chapter 11 allows a corporation to break a labor contact or reduce pension debts. Shareholders also lose, but by the time bankruptcy is declared, the company’s share value has usually dwindled to almost nothing. Much of the private equity industry uses the strategy of acquiring a company, taking it into bankruptcy, thus shedding its debts, and then cashing in on its subsequent profitability. Despite the misleading term private ‘equity,’ tax-deductible private debt is the essence of this industry, which relies heavily on borrowed money to finance its takeovers.

Homeowners, however, are explicitly prohibited from using the bankruptcy code to reduce their outstanding mortgage debt. White House legislation proposed in 2009 would have allowed a judge to reduce the principal on a home mortgage, as part of the effort to contain the economic crisis. Congress rejected the measure after extensive lobbying by the financial industry. Consumers may use bankruptcy to shed other debts, but a revision of the law signed by President Bush in 2005 subjects most bankrupt consumers to partial repayment requirements, while bankrupt corporations get a general discharge from their debts. Thanks to the influence of the same financial lobby, the rules of student debt provide that the obligations of a college loan follow a borrower to the grave.”

Tags: ,

"DIY spirit."

“DIY spirit.”

free stained couch (flatbush)

3 seater pullout couch, free, very stained with dogs period blood, gross i know but its free and with a little DIY spirit it can surely be revived yet again.

6th floor elevator.

peace.

From Greg Klerkx’s Aeon essay, “Spaced Out,” a tidy explanation of how the “final frontier” differs from frontiers of old:

“Space tourism, driven by ‘astropreneurs’ such as Virgin Galactic’s Richard Branson, will soon add hundreds of wealthy people to the astronaut ranks, but only for brief sojourns: they’ll reach suborbital space for a few quick minutes before returning to the atmosphere. Eventually, those high-paying tourists might want to stay awhile; Bigelow Aerospace has made no secret that its inflatables would be ideal for such a purpose, and the ISS has already hosted several tourists. Study upon study has indicated that many happy billions of dollars are there to be made in the human spaceflight business, which includes not just space labs, stations and hotels but also outposts on the moon and beyond.

Space futurists — many of whom I count as friends — can finally, and with some measure of reality, lay claim to the idea that we are on the verge of fulfilling the philosophical promise of the Space Age and becoming what the SpaceX founder Elon Musk describes as ‘a multi-planet species’. Certainly, it has taken longer than they’d hoped: the pace of the Apollo years was unsustainable, being largely fuelled by the geopolitics of the Cold War, and space bureaucracies have been slow to take advantage of entrepreneurial efficiencies. Space futurists argue that things are changing. They insist that a new Space Age is dawning. But what if the signs they see are only the last wispy auroras of the first one?

Whether launched for profit or pride, the ISS, Bigelow Aerospace and Chinese space stations are artifacts of a particular cultural moment, when living in space was thought to be the next step in humankind’s evolution. Space had become more than an ocean to traverse, paceKennedy. It had become, in that iconic Star Trek phrase, ‘the final frontier’.

I am as big a Star Trek fan as anyone, but I fear the frontier analogy misses the mark. On the frontier of old, one expected to find a better version of the world left behind: more land, more resources, more possibility. But the more we learn about ‘space’, the more we understand that living there would mean being forever enswathed in a portable bubble of Earth, with the goal being merely to survive.”

Tags:

The aviation industry is a miracle to me. There hasn’t been a fatal air crash in America in four years, fares are relatively inexpensive and carbon emissions are surprisingly low. The automotive industry, which initially had a huge advantage thanks to Henry Ford and his assembly line, only now seems to be catching up, with emphasis on lighter, smarter and more fuel-efficient vehicles, even driverless ones. From an Economist report about the future of cars in the global market:

“As an investment, then, the motor industry has to be treated with caution. But its engineering and environmental credentials are improving all the time. A century after becoming a mass-market product, the car is still a long way from being a mature technology. Manufacturers and their suppliers are investing huge sums in a variety of improved propulsion systems and in new lightweight materials to meet regulators’ emissions targets. The current generation of models is already vastly cleaner than earlier ones, and emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, soot and other pollutants are set to fall much further. The smog that began to afflict traffic-choked California in the 1950s and is now obscuring the sky in Chinese cities will gradually clear. The day may come when environmentalists stop worrying so much about cars and turn their attention to other polluters.

Consumers will be in heaven. Improved manufacturing systems will allow the bigger carmakers to offer an ever wider range of models, supplemented by a steady stream of niche products from new entrants. Fierce competition will keep prices down even as cars are packed with ever more technology that will make them more expensive to produce. More of them will drive themselves, park themselves and avoid collisions automatically. That should cut down on accidents and traffic jams, reduce the stress associated with driving and provide personal mobility for the growing ranks of the elderly and disabled.

All the technology that will go into making cars cleaner will also make them far more fuel-efficient and more economical. For motorists with short, predictable daily drives, all-electric cars may prove adequate and, as batteries improve, increasingly cost-effective. Others will be able to pick from a range of propulsion systems, including hybrid, natural gas and hydrogen as well as improved petrol or diesel engines, to suit their needs.”

From the October 27, 1873 New York Times:

“A letter dated Oct. 1, from Dos Palmas Station, on the Desert, to the Yuma (Cal.) Sentinel, says:: ‘Four days ago the son of old Chino Theodore, from Yuma, came to this station about dark, on foot, and nearly dead for water. He said he had left his father and a boy, the brother of Mrs. Jeager, out forty miles on the desert, without water and nearly dead for the want of it, having been without it for three days when he left them twenty four hours before. Joe Dittier, the station-keeper, and Hank Brown started the next morning with a team and plenty of water to find them. After going twenty-five miles, they came upon the old man. He had found a cask of water that had been left by surveyors, and had drank himself nearly to death. One of the party stayed with him, and the other went to look for the boy. After going fifteen miles he was discovered stretched out under a bush, naked and almost dead–his tongue being swollen and black, and blood running out of his nose and ears. He was brought to after two hours’ hard work, having been without water for five days and nights. Their three horses died. The party are now stopping here and getting along all right. The old man says that if he had not lost his knife he would have cut his throat, and ended his misery. The station keeper and Brown deserve praise for the manner in which they acted, being without food three days on their return.”

Tags: , , , ,

Video killed the radio star, but algorithms got the American film critic.

The Digital Age has made it easy for Netflix and others to tell you what you would like to see without reading film criticism or even watching thumbs point north or south. And the global market for movies has birthed the creation of one comic-book blockbuster after another, heavy on action and effects and light on dialogue, moving many of the better creators of personal storytelling to cable television. These shifts have sent film critics the way of travel agents.

However, Jonathan Rosenbaum, legendary arbiter of the Chicago Reader, pushes back at the idea that the Digital Age is a death knell for cinema writers. His best argument: Many of the most high-profile, pre-Netflix movie-reviewing slots were filled by hacks who knew little. That’s true. It’s hard to deny, though, that the vocation–not avocation–has cratered. From John Lingan’s Los Angeles Review of Books piece about Rosenbaum during the so-called twilight of the critics:

For the Love of Movies is a grim tale of extinction, in which [Gerald] Peary guides the audience through the marquee names in American movie writing from Frank E. Woods to Harry Knowles before asking us to mourn the dozens of critics who have lost their jobs since the recession began. Throughout the film, headshots of former critics flash like a succession of milk carton children. And in a final gesture that no other audience member seemed to find as comically melodramatic as I did, the final credits rolled over a contemporary rendition of Stephen Foster’s Civil War–era ballad for the downtrodden, ‘Hard Times Come Again No More.’

Ten minutes into the Q&A, Rosenbaum pushed back against Peary’s negativity, as I expected he might.

When the moderator suggested that nonprofessional film bloggers lack a proper appreciation for the history of cinema, Rosenbaum declared, ‘To be quite frank, the whole time I’ve been involved in film criticism, I’ve never understood what the difference is between professionalism and amateurs. There are people in positions of great authority who know very little about film, and people who are considered amateurs who know a great deal.’

Rosenbaum’s career has been marked by this disregard for accepted hierarchies. In London in the early 1970s, he reviewed everything from the British Film Institute’s revivals to soft-core porn movies. At the Reader, he paid equal attention to the multiplex, art houses, and museum programming. And, in response to the American Film Institute’s 1998 list of the ‘100 Greatest American Movies,’ Rosenbaum published his own top 100, which included experimental works and documentaries alongside lush Hollywood moneymakers like An Affair to Remember. ‘If these lists have any purpose at all from our standpoint (as opposed to the interests of the merchandisers),’ he argued:

this is surely to rouse us out of our boredom and stupor, not to ratify our already foreshortened definitions and perspectives. Above all, the impulse to provide another list is to defend the breadth, richness, and intelligence of the American cinema against its self-appointed custodians, who seem to want to lock us into an eternity of Oscar nights.

Addressing Peary on the National Gallery stage, Rosenbaum said, ‘My biggest problem with [For the Love of Movies] is you focused too much on American film criticism,’ eliciting a mild gasp from the crowd for spoiling the heretofore united front. Peary made the reasonable defense that his limited budget and running time didn’t allow him the luxury of a global view, but Rosenbaum had mounted one of his favorite hobbyhorses and wasn’t about to dismount.

‘The great possibility of the Internet is its internationalism,’ he continued. Few critics Rosenbaum’s age have embraced this ‘great possibility’ so forcefully. He spoke admiringly of the young, unpaid writers and unprofitable web magazines that, in the liveliness of their thought and content, often eclipse even hallowed print journals like Film Comment or Sight & Sound.”

Tags: , ,

ESPN’s Colin Cowherd is a hideous man, full of bluster, arrogance and wrongheadedness–and it’s obvious that he’s a sign of the times in American broadcasting. He creates elaborate, asinine theories and stuffs them full of “facts” that are usually not true. His predictions are almost always wrong. If Cowherd tells you to bet the rent money on something, you best sock it under a mattress. But being wrong and obnoxious has yet to cost him because like most pundits, he’s not in the business of being right. He’s in the business of being loud and of being a brand.

Just one small example: Before the 2012 baseball season, the Texas Rangers let pitcher C.J. Wilson become a free agent, instead opting to invest money in Japanese pitcher Yu Darvish, whom the organization had scouted heavily. Cowherd went on the radio with one of his typical idiotic rants, stating authoritatively that this was an example of how people are attracted to the unknown instead of appreciating what has worked for them, that the team had fallen in love with an ideal instead of understanding what they already had was better, that Wilson would prove to be the superior pitcher. Mark my words, Cowherd said.

He didn’t take into account that Darvish was a young pitcher about to age into his prime and Wilson was older and exiting his. He didn’t pay attention to Darvish having a deeper arsenal of pitches. He didn’t pay attention to reality at all. The Rangers hadn’t fallen in love with an ideal; it was Cowherd who had fallen in love with his moronic theory. I guess I don’t have to add that in the 14 months since Texas made its decision–one based on scouting, data and analysis–Darvish has proven to be one of the best pitchers in MLB while Wilson has faltered badly for his new team. And this isn’t just the exception with Cowherd–it’s the rule.

Cowherd doesn’t limit his foolishness to sports–he also makes gross and insulting generalizations about women and anyone he feels isn’t as successful as he is, though your definition of “successful” may differ. The suits at the sports network are obviously bright enough to realize what a huge douche they have working for them. But they only care about one thing: Can we turn him into a star and make money from his noise?

Of course, this is just a sports guy and sports aren’t important. But the same holds true for media across all areas in this country, especially in our age of dwindling financial returns for traditional platforms. When Jeff Zucker became the new head of CNN, he promised that he would “broaden the definition of what news is.” That remark won him applause from Rupert Murdoch, who has been poisoning the air with non-news and dubious research methods for decades. Murdoch has always believed that news is just another form of entertainment. Perhaps its just a coincidence that CNN and News Corp. properties were fast and first and embarrassingly wrong in the aftermath of the horrendous Boston Marathon carnage.

Proud jughead Joe Scarborough was able to cherry-pick polls that helped him sell dishonest stories in the run-up to the Presidential election, while questioning the integrity of pollster Nate Silver, who stuck to the numbers. The facts didn’t matter.

These aren’t crazy conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones–the single biggest sack of shit in American media–but in some ways their dishonesty is more dangerous. It isn’t cloaked in extremism but in respectability. And there’s nothing respectable about it.

The opening of Colin McGowan’s new article about the cartoonish Cowherd at the Classical:

“This past Friday, Colin Cowherd sat down with Bill Simmons to talk mostly about Colin Cowherd. They also kicked around a few theories about the mutation of LeBron’s competitiveness gene and the link between fascism and food. In tone, the podcast is more or less what one would expect: two hip-shooters a-hip-shootin’, and some excessive mutual admiration—Cowherd talks about Simmons’s perspective and craft as if Simmonsian should join Kafkaesque as an OED-approved literary adjective; Simmons gushes over Cowherd’s ability to… talk to himself for nine minutes at a time. For my part, I cleaned my apartment and occasionally yelled ‘wrong!’ from across the room.

I listened to the interview because I’m not looking to set my brain on fire with intellectual stimulation while drinking gin and scrubbing cat piss out of my bathroom floor on a Friday evening, but also because I wanted to listen to two powerful media figures I dislike talk shop. I think both Cowherd and Simmons, in their own ways, are what’s wrong with sports media, which in turn makes for an increasingly facile and (in Cowherd’s case) needlessly hostile mainstream sports discourse. I’ve called Simmons ‘either a hack or a complete asshole,’ and Cowherd, along with his louder, more malignant cousin Skip Bayless, isn’t in the sports business so much as he’s in the infuriation business. He peddles haughty reductiveness and calls it honesty, then bats around an overmatched simpleton from Steak’s Landing, Wisconsin for a few minutes before returning to his now-basically-show-long rant about Carmelo Anthony’s facial expressions and how, he doesn’t care what you think, he’s gonna go on pronouncing it ‘jih-roh.’

The podcast isn’t uninteresting, which Cowherd might claim is the entire battle. He exclaims at one point ‘What’s wrong with being interesting?’ which is exactly the sort of unassailable bully logic he employs on his radio show. Of course there is obviously nothing wrong with being interesting—what with it being definitionally positive—but here, Cowherd isn’t talking about the Lakers’ playoff chances for the third time in four days or staging overrated/underrated debates about literally anything. He’s talking about himself, and why he is the way he is, what he believes in. This is engaging enough: Colin Cowherd the human being is unlike anyone I’ve ever met. If he wants to talk about what makes him strange, I’ll listen.

What makes him strange—wrong, but also strange—is that he sees a direct correlation between popularity and, if not quite quality, some inherent goodness.”

Tags: ,

The opening of Peter Lewis’ barnesandnoble.com review of Joel F. Harrington’s The Faithful Executioner, a new volume about the 16th-century man who did “god’s work” in the gallows:

“Frantz Schmidt was a master executioner. He had a notarized certificate to prove it. He apprenticed under a master; he paid his journeyman’s dues. He mostly worked in the imperial city of Nuremberg during his forty-five years of service, 1573-1618. He executed 394 people: men, women, and some boys and girls. Schmidt, always poised, delivered a good death, whether he beat you to kingdom come with a wagon wheel or applied the pitch and touched the flame, slipped the noose or cut off your head.

A ‘good death’ was meant to shock and awe the locals, to keep them ruly in the absence of any effective central authority during some seriously unruly times. Executions were carefully orchestrated, ritualized brutality that sated the drive for retribution, with clear rules and conduct. The fathers of Nuremberg, a city then at the zenith of its power and wealth, hired Frantz Schmidt: reliable, honest, pious, reflective, loyal, sober Frantz, a rare bird in the world of executioners.”

Tags: , ,

To celebrate 40 years since the first cell phone call, here’s a Motorola promotional video from the tool’s second decade.

Why would established authors continue to work for publishing companies instead of putting out their own books? I suppose if there is a bucket of money involved, it might make sense to be owned rather than to own, but as publishers continue to be undone by technological tumult, they have fewer dollars to pay except for blockbusters, and they do less and less in terms of fact-checking, publicity, etc. In fact, the only reason there will soon be to publish a printed book is for vanity, the ego-stroking joy of having a printed-and-bound product to show off. 

David Mamet has made the only intelligent decision, going the lone-wolf route with his forthcoming book. From Leslie Kaufman in the New York Times:

“As digital disruption continues to reshape the publishing market, self-publishing — including distribution digitally or as print on demand — has become more and more popular, and more feasible, with an increasing array of options for anyone with an idea and a keyboard. Most of the attention so far has focused on unknown and unsigned authors who storm onto the best-seller lists through their own ingenuity.

The announcement by ICM and Mr. Mamet suggests that self-publishing will begin to widen its net and become attractive also to more established authors. For one thing, as traditional publishers have cut back on marketing, this route allows well-known figures like Mr. Mamet to look after their own publicity.

Then there is the money. While self-published authors get no advance, they typically receive 70 percent of sales. A standard contract with a traditional house gives an author an advance, and only pays royalties — the standard is 25 percent of digital sales and 7 to 12 percent of the list price for bound books — after the advance is earned back in sales.”

Tags: ,

“The patient immediately regained full consciousness.”

As far as I can tell, a Tokyo man fainted on a train platform in 1910 and got the crap beaten out of him. The New York Times had a different take in its September 4 issue of that year. The story:

Tokyo–An extraordinary story of the resuscitation of a man apparently dead by means of jiu-jitsu is printed by the Japanese Advertiser, which paper declares that, though jiu-jitsu has attracted much attention throughout the world as a marvelous art of self-defense, it has not yet received the attention it deserves as a means of restoring to life persons who are victims of shock, concussion of the brain, apoplexy or drowning.

It has long been asserted that this curious science has what may be known as an esoteric side–that there are secrets connected with it that are imparted only to those who have attained a very high degree of proficiency, and that they are pledged not to divulge these secrets. It is even said–and believed–that certain jiu-jitsu experts know how to kill a human being by what is little more than a touch.

However this may be, the story now related appears well authenticated. A man named Tanenouchi Yasutara, 23 years old, a conductor in the service of the Tokio street railway, suddenly fell apparently lifeless on the platform of the train on which he was on duty. His collapse was due to apoplexy. The man’s body was lifted to the ground and every possible means of resuscitation known to the fellow conductors and motormen, as well as others suggested by onlookers, was tried without avail. The man remained livid, without any apparent respiration or pulsation, and was on the point of being given up for dead when one Iura Hidikichi, who is a jiu-jitsu expert, happened to pass by, and, lifting the lifeless body up, tried upon it the jiu-jitsu method of resuscitation. 

The effect was an instantaneous as it was marvelous. The patient immediately regained full consciousness, to the great amazement of the onlookers who had crowded around.

Broadly speaking the method employed is as follows: The operator kneels on one knee immediately behind the patient, whom he lifts to a semi-sitting posture, placing his (the operator’s) knee between and slightly below the patient’s shoulder blades in the cardiac region, then brings his hands forward over the patient’s chest, and then gives them a powerful jerk backward. If any life remains the effect is instantaneous, not only respiration and pulsation, but full consciousness, being restored. There are, however, details in regard to this treatment which cannot be learned.”

Tags: ,

From a Wired report by Tim Maly at Wired a microchip by Freescale that is so small that, yes, it can be swallowed:

“Chipmaker Freescale Semiconductor has created the world’s smallest ARM-powered chip, designed to push the world of connected devices into surprising places.

Announced today, the Kinetis KL02 measures just 1.9 by 2 millimeters. It’s a full microcontroller unit (MCU), meaning the chip sports a processor, RAM, ROM, clock and I/O control unit — everything a body needs to be a basic tiny computer.

The KL02 has 32k of flash memory, 4k of RAM, a 32 bit processor, and peripherals like a 12-bit analog to digital converter and a low-power UART built into the chip. By including these extra parts, device makers can shrink down their designs, resulting in tiny boards in tiny devices.

How tiny? One application that Freescale says the chips could be used for is swallowable computers. Yes, you read that right. ‘We are working with our customers and partners on providing technology for their products that can be swallowed but we can’t really comment on unannounced products,’ says Steve Tateosian, global product marketing manager.”

Tags:

"Would even consider human skulls."

“Would even consider human skulls and such.”

wanted: unusual taxidermy, stuffed animals or in jars

Hi,

I own a small antique store in Yardley Borough and am coming up on my store’s 1 year anniversary. Looking for unusual taxidermy (not deer), stuffed animal diorama pieces or animals in jars. Would even consider human skulls and such to use as display pieces at my store.

Douglas Rushkoff, author of Present Shock, discussing the anarchic nature of the flow of time in the Digital Age in a New York Times interview conducted by Quentin Hardy:

Question:

You say we have ‘a new relationship with time.’ What is it, and why is that a bad thing?

Douglas Rushkoff:

What we’ve done has made time even more dense. On Facebook, your past comes into your present when someone from your second grade class suddenly pops up to send you a message, and your future is being manipulated by what Facebook knows to put in front of you next. Present shock interrupts our normal social flow.

It didn’t have to be this way. When digital culture first came along, it was supposed to create more time, by allowing us to shift time around. Somehow instead we’ve strapped devices to ourselves that ping us all the time.

Question:

Hasn’t time been collapsing for centuries? We moved from the rhythm of seasons to living by the clock in the Industrial Age. We’ve paced in front of the microwave for decades.

Douglas Rushkoff: 

Yes, but it has hit a point where we have lost any sense of analog time, the way a second hand sweeps around a clock. We’ve chosen the false ‘now’ of our devices. It has led to a collapse of linear narratives and a culture where you have political movements demanding that everything change, now. The horrible truth is we are linear beings; we can’t multitask, and we shouldn’t keep interrupting important connections to each other with the latest message coming in.

Question:

It’s a funny thing: the counterculture used to talk about ‘Be here now,’ and the need to chase after self-awareness by seeking the eternal present. What is the difference between that world of the “now” and this one?

Douglas Rushkoff:

People are seduced by signals from the world, but that is manipulation, not reality. Computers have learned more about us than we’ve learned about them.•

Tags: ,

Just a quick reminder about the Revenge of the Mekons fundraiser party I told you about recently. It’s tonight at 7pm, so RSVP at events@alisoneighteen.com or call (212) 366-1818. In addition to beer, film, food, fun and Franzen, there will also be an auction of rare Mekons posters and art work. It will be a silent auction, so shut the fuck up.

Will there be any Mekons there? It’s a cash bar, so you do the math.

Tags:

Mark Jacobson has crafted a plan that contends that New York State can fulfill all its energy needs by 2030 sans fossil fuels or carbon emissions, simply using WWS (Wind, Water, Sun). He discusses the major obstacles and criticisms of the plan in a Scientific American interview conducted by Mark Fischetti. An excerpt:

Question:

What are the main obstacles to such a sweeping overhaul at a state or national level?

Mark Jacobson:

The main obstacles are political and social—getting politicians onboard. There are always local zoning issues. I’m sure there will be a big push by the gas lobby and the oil lobby against this.

Question:

So then how do you sell the plan?

Mark Jacobson:

There is a huge savings in lives. The New York plan would prevent 4,000 mortalities a year in the state due to less air pollution, and a related savings of $33 billion—about 3 percent of the GDP of the state. That resonates more with people than climate change issues. We also looked at job creation; more jobs would be created than lost.

Question:

The main criticism about heavy reliance on wind and solar power is that the sources are intermittent: the wind doesn’t always blow, the sun doesn’t shine at night. Do your plans rely a lot on energy storage, which remains a tough challenge?

Mark Jacobson:

If you get the [power] transmission grid right you don’t need a whole lot of storage. By combining wind and solar and geothermal and hydroelectric, you can match the power demand. And if you oversize the grid, when you’re producing extra electricity you use it to produce hydrogen [for fuel-cell vehicles and ships as well as some district heating and industrial processes]. You can also spread the peak demand by giving financial incentives [for consumers to use power at off-peak times]. Some storage certainly would help; we have storage in the form of hydrogen and in concentrated solar power plants. There are many ways to tackle the intermittency issues.

Question:

The other concern that is usually raised about renewable energy is that it is more expensive than fossil fuels. What would electricity prices be like in New York?

Mark Jacobson:

The residential electricity cost in the U.S. on average is 13.1 cents per kilowatt-hour. In New York it’s 18.1 cents. If you look at the states that have the highest percentage of electricity generation from wind, the average electricity price increase from 2003 to 2011 was 2 cents a kilowatt-hour, whereas all the other states averaged 3.6 cents. So prices in the states that didn’t put in a lot of wind went up more.”

Tags: ,

From Joseph Stiglitz, on tax day, in the New York Times:

Leona Helmsley, the hotel chain executive who was convicted of federal tax evasion in 1989, was notorious for, among other things, reportedly having said that ‘only the little people pay taxes.’

As a statement of principle, the quotation may well have earned Mrs. Helmsley, who died in 2007, the title Queen of Mean. But as a prediction about the fairness of American tax policy, Mrs. Helmsley’s remark might actually have been prescient.

Today, the deadline for filing individual income-tax returns, is a day when Americans would do well to pause and reflect on our tax system and the society it creates. No one enjoys paying taxes, and yet all but the extreme libertarians agree, as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, that taxes are the price we pay for civilized society. But in recent decades, the burden for paying that price has been distributed in increasingly unfair ways.

About 6 in 10 of us believe that the tax system is unfair — and they’re right: put simply, the very rich don’t pay their fair share.”

Tags: ,

From the July 15, 1847 Brooklyn Daily Eagle:

Philadelphia–On Tuesday evening last, in Decatur Street, William Rushworth and Patrick McGuire quarreled, a regular fight ensued, when the former got the latter down, throttled him until his tongue protruded from his mouth, and then bit it off. The physicians fear death will ensue from mortification or lock jaw, and in case of recovery he will be deprived of the power of articulation.”

Tags: ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »