Thursday, July 7, 2011

Watches Are Rediscovered by the Cellphone Generation


[ed.  This is how you know you're old -- when something you do or own becomes fashionable again, never knowing it had ever become unfashionable.]

by Alex Williams

Tyler Thoreson, the head of men’s editorial for Gilt Man, the flash sale Web site, often kept his forgettable watches stashed in a drawer.

And Eddy Chai, an owner of Odin New York, a downtown men’s boutique, gave up wearing watches regularly in his mid-20s, when he outgrew his Casio.

But after going watch-free for much of the last decade, the three men — all in their 30s and considered style influencers — are turning back time. Mr. Thoreson, 38, is shopping for a vintage gold IWC with a white dial or a Rolex GMT-Master. Mr. Chai, 38, has been wearing a vintage Rolex, loosely dangling around his wrist, “not as a timepiece, but as a piece of jewelry,” he said.

And Mr. Williams, 32, splurged on three watches: an IWC Portuguese, a Rolex GMT-Master II and an Omega Speedmaster, also known as the “moon watch,” since that is what Apollo astronauts wore.

“The men’s-wear set has recently rediscovered the joy of proper mechanical timepieces,” Mr. Williams said. “Right now there is no clearer indication of cool than wearing a watch. If it was your grandfather’s bubbleback Rolex, even better.”

As recently as a half-decade ago, time seemed to be running out for the wristwatch. With cellphones, iPods and other clock-equipped devices becoming ubiquitous, armchair sociologists were writing off the wristwatch as an antique, joining VHS tapes, Walkman players and pocket calculators on the slag heap of outmoded gadgets.

The wristwatch “may be going the way of the abacus,” declared a news article in The Sacramento Bee in 2006. The Times of London had it “going the same way as the sundial.” The Boston Globe, in a 2005 lifestyle feature, was more definitive: “Anyone who needs to know the time these days would be wise to ask someone over the age of 30. To most young people, the wristwatch is an obsolete artifact.”

Or, not.

The “sundial” of the wrist is experiencing an uptick among members of the supposed lost generation, particularly by heritage-macho types in their 20s and 30s who are drawn to the wristwatch’s retro appeal, just as they have seized on straight razors, selvedge denim and vintage vinyl.

"It’s an understated statement about your station in life, your taste level,” Mr. Thoreson said.

Read more:

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Pat Metheny, Lyle Mays

via:
Emil Nolde - “Clematis und Dahlien” 1935
via:

The Rising Cost of At-Home Tech

A recent rundown we conducted on our monthly bills for communications, home entertainment and digital information was striking. The bill for Cablevision in Connecticut was $232.64, covering cable (including HBO and Showtime) and broadband for our PCs. Our BlackBerrys were another $84.18 and $81.28. The two land lines were a relative bargain at $32.11 and $57.16. The best deal was a phone card for overseas calls (mainly to Beijing) at two cents a minute.

Now, there are extenuating circumstances. As a consultant, my wife often works from a home office, and I do a lot of work (this piece, for example) at home also. Except for the cable bill, however, it is hard to separate the purely business from the personal calls and emails in what has become for so many of us a 24/7 rhythm of interaction with friends, families and colleagues. But add it all up and home technology has become a significant item in the household budget. As recently as the mid-1990s, dial-up AOL was about $20, and we probably had basic cable, but television was essentially still free, and cell phones were just for calls and, with a two-year contract, the devices mainly were provided gratis.

All that added technology has also put pressure on electricity bills (ours can run as high $400 a month) and on the power grids that support the added equipment. USA Today reported recently that electric bills are so inflated in part because cable, satellite and other pay-TV boxes are always operating, even when they are not being used. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the 160 million set-top boxes in U.S. homes cost $3 billion to operate, and two-thirds of that power -- costing $2 billion -- was wasted, because, as one NRDC senior scientist told USA Today, they are "energy vampires," drawing a full quota of energy even when they are not on. The cable industry is working with manufacturers on more efficient equipment, a spokesman said, but it will be years before the overwhelming majority of set-tops are replaced.

Chicken, Simmered and Chilled

TRUE confession: I love cold chicken. Cold roast chicken, cold fried chicken, a meaty cold chicken carcass for finger-licking nibbling. And during the long days of summer, I crave cold boiled chicken, brightened with hot pepper, sesame oil and scallions.

But not really boiled. The secret to the best-tasting chicken with the loveliest texture is to barely simmer it ever so gently at just under the boil. A number of Chinese recipes describe a whole chicken cooked in this manner. Some even call for dipping a whole bird into a pot of boiling water and essentially turning off the heat, clamping on the lid and waiting. Here I’ve adapted the technique for meaty thighs.

This is an easy dish, put together in minutes and abandoned for an hour on a low flame. If you do it in the morning it will be ready for lunch, but I prefer to cook it a day ahead. Its flavors deepen with a night in the fridge.

Do buy the best chicken you can, even if it costs more (it will). Factory chickens always taste flabby no matter what you do. Choose a free-range bird for the flavor, the food politics and, not least, the muscular thighs.

The recipe in three sentences: Season the thighs with salt and pepper, ginger, star anise and scallions, cover with water and simmer slowly. Remove the chicken, reduce the cooking liquid, then pour it back over the meat. Wait until it’s well chilled.

To serve, sprinkle the ice-cold jelly-clad chicken with sesame oil, scallions, cilantro and jalapeƱo slices. Give it a squeeze of lime. If you want something extra, add cucumber, avocado and crisp lettuce leaves. Or take off the skin, shred the chicken and have it with cold noodles.

Recipe:
via:

Drugs and the Meaning of Life


Everything we do is for the purpose of altering consciousness. We form friendships so that we can feel certain emotions, like love, and avoid others, like loneliness. We eat specific foods to enjoy their fleeting presence on our tongues. We read for the pleasure of thinking another person’s thoughts. Every waking moment—and even in our dreams—we struggle to direct the flow of sensation, emotion, and cognition toward states of consciousness that we value.

Drugs are another means toward this end. Some are illegal; some are stigmatized; some are dangerous—though, perversely, these sets only partially intersect. There are drugs of extraordinary power and utility, like psilocybin (the active compound in “magic mushrooms”) and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), which pose no apparent risk of addiction and are physically well-tolerated, and yet one can still be sent to prison for their use—while drugs like tobacco and alcohol, which have ruined countless lives, are enjoyed ad libitum in almost every society on earth. There are other points on this continuum—3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA or “Ecstasy”) has remarkable therapeutic potential, but it is also susceptible to abuse, and it appears to be neurotoxic.[1]

One of the great responsibilities we have as a society is to educate ourselves, along with the next generation, about which substances are worth ingesting, and for what purpose, and which are not. The problem, however, is that we refer to all biologically active compounds by a single term—“drugs”—and this makes it nearly impossible to have an intelligent discussion about the psychological, medical, ethical, and legal issues surrounding their use. The poverty of our language has been only slightly eased by the introduction of terms like “psychedelics” to differentiate certain visionary compounds, which can produce extraordinary states of ecstasy and insight, from “narcotics” and other classic agents of stupefaction and abuse.

Drug abuse and addiction are real problems, of course—the remedy for which is education and medical treatment, not incarceration. In fact, the worst drugs of abuse in the United States now appear to be prescription painkillers, like oxycodone. Should these medicines be made illegal? Of course not. People need to be informed about them, and addicts need treatment. And all drugs—including alcohol, cigarettes, and aspirin—must be kept out of the hands of children.

I discuss issues of drug policy in some detail in my first book, The End of Faith (pp. 158-164), and my thinking on the subject has not changed. The “war on drugs” has been well lost, and should never have been waged. While it isn’t explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, I can think of no political right more fundamental than the right to peacefully steward the contents of one’s own consciousness. The fact that we pointlessly ruin the lives of nonviolent drug users by incarcerating them, at enormous expense, constitutes one of the great moral failures of our time. (And the fact that we make room for them in our prisons by paroling murderers and rapists makes one wonder whether civilization isn’t simply doomed.)

I have a daughter who will one day take drugs. Of course, I will do everything in my power to see that she chooses her drugs wisely, but a life without drugs is neither foreseeable, nor, I think, desirable. Someday, I hope she enjoys a morning cup of tea or coffee as much as I do. If my daughter drinks alcohol as an adult, as she probably will, I will encourage her to do it safely. If she chooses to smoke marijuana, I will urge moderation.[2] Tobacco should be shunned, of course, and I will do everything within the bounds of decent parenting to steer her away from it. Needless to say, if I knew my daughter would eventually develop a fondness for methamphetamine or crack cocaine, I might never sleep again. But if she does not try a psychedelic like psilocybin or LSD at least once in her adult life, I will worry that she may have missed one of the most important rites of passage a human being can experience.

This is not to say that everyone should take psychedelics. As I will make clear below, these drugs pose certain dangers. Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug. It has been many years since I have taken psychedelics, in fact, and my abstinence is borne of a healthy respect for the risks involved. However, there was a period in my early 20’s when I found drugs like psilocybin and LSD to be indispensable tools of insight, and some of the most important hours of my life were spent under their influence. I think it quite possible that I might never have discovered that there was an inner landscape of mind worth exploring without having first pressed this pharmacological advantage.

Specs That See Right Through You

Boring conversation? Accessories that decipher emotional cues could save your social life – or reveal that you're a jerk

ROSALIND PICARD'S eyes were wide open. I couldn't blame her. We were sitting in her office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Media Lab, and my questions were stunningly incisive. In fact, I began to suspect that I must be one of the savviest journalists she had ever met.

Then Picard handed me a pair of special glasses. The instant I put them on I discovered that I had got it all terribly wrong. That look of admiration, I realised, was actually confusion and disagreement. Worse, she was bored out of her mind. I became privy to this knowledge because a little voice was whispering in my ear through a headphone attached to the glasses. It told me that Picard was "confused" or "disagreeing". All the while, a red light built into the specs was blinking above my right eye to warn me to stop talking. It was as though I had developed an extra sense.

The glasses can send me this information thanks to a built-in camera linked to software that analyses Picard's facial expressions. They're just one example of a number of "social X-ray specs" that are set to transform how we interact with each other. By sensing emotions that we would otherwise miss, these technologies can thwart disastrous social gaffes and help us understand each other better. Some companies are already wiring up their employees with the technology, to help them improve how they communicate with customers. Our emotional intelligence is about to be boosted, but are we ready to broadcast feelings we might rather keep private?

We project many subtle facial expressions that mirror our feelings. In the 1970s, US psychologist Paul Ekman identified a basic set of seven: happiness, sadness, fear, anger, disgust, contempt and surprise. They became the foundation for a theory of lie detection, which posited that involuntary micro-expressions can briefly unmask deception before the liar restores a facade of honesty to their face. Though the theory was later debunked, the principle wasn't entirely unsound.

In conversation, we pantomime certain emotions that act as social lubricants. We unconsciously nod to signal that we are following the other person's train of thought, for example, or squint a bit to indicate that we are losing track. Many of these signals can be misinterpreted - sometimes because different cultures have their own specific signals.

More often, we fail to spot them altogether. During a face-to-face conversation, thousands of tiny indicators on a person's face - arching the brow, puckering or parting the lips - add up to a series of non-verbal hints that augment our verbal communication. Blink, and you'll miss them.

The idea that technology could amplify these signals was first explored by Rana el Kaliouby at the University of Cambridge, UK. She wanted to help autistic people, who find it particularly hard to pick up on other people's emotions.

Read more:

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Grateful Dead - Deal


Small Things in Small Packages

“I saved this for last,” my boyfriend says, proudly handing me a wrapped box the exact size of a ring box that he had been hiding behind him on the couch that is now strewn with opened gifts and discarded wrapping paper.

I can't believe he's doing this in front of my whole family, I think, nervously accepting it. I can't believe our proposal story is going to be this cheesy and, considering he’s Jewish and I’m half Jewish, so Christmasy.

I hear a sharp intake of breath from my mom that basically says … This is it.

Now let me preface this by saying that I am not someone who grew up dreaming of my wedding day. I grew up dreaming about my book release party, which by the way I just had, with 100 of my closest friends and family and I wore a yellow vintage Fendi dress, I got my hair blown out, I got my make-up done, and we ate cupcakes and drank pink champagne and it was fabulous. But now, I realized looking down at the box I was holding neatly wrapped in a red bow, I was ready to get married. We'd been living together in sin for over two years and we’d even adopted a surrogate child otherwise known as a cat together. By this point we kind of knew what we were signed up for. We knew what the other was going to say before they said a word. We were that annoying couple. Which was why I was a little surprised to unwrap my "Tiffany’s" box and find a shrink-wrapped t-shirt. Like the kind they sell at Muji or the MoMA gift shop. The kind no one ever actually wears.

“Oh my god!” my mom cried. Nearly crying.

“I know, isn't it great?” my boyfriend asked, completely oblivious to the range of ingrained feminine emotions he had just put us through. “Can you believe they fit a t-shirt into a package that size??”

No, we both said.

So I did the only reasonable thing to do in a situation like that: I re-gifted. I rewrapped the t-shirt, put a big fat bow on the top, and gave it to his sister for her birthday. She was psyched because when you're not expecting a gift, a shrink wrapped t-shirt is pretty awesome.

It took another year for my boyfriend and I to take a long overdue break. We're still in relationship limbo.

Bianca Turetsky 
via:

A Woman’s Place

In 2007, the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, knew that he needed help. His social-network site was growing fast, but, at the age of twenty-three, he felt ill-equipped to run it. That December, he went to a Christmas party at the home of Dan Rosensweig, a Silicon Valley executive, and as he approached the house he saw someone who had been mentioned as a possible partner, Sheryl Sandberg, Google’s thirty-eight-year-old vice-president for global online sales and operations. Zuckerberg hadn’t called her before (why would someone who managed four thousand employees want to leave for a company that had barely any revenue?), but he went up and introduced himself. “We talked for probably an hour by the door,” Zuckerberg recalls.

It turned out that Sandberg was ready for a new challenge. She had even talked with Donald Graham, the C.E.O. of the troubled Washington Post Company, about becoming a senior executive there. After the holidays, Zuckerberg e-mailed her, and they had the first of many dinners. They met at the Flea Street CafĆ©, around the corner from her home in Atherton, but then decided that they needed more privacy. His tiny Palo Alto apartment—which had almost no furniture—wouldn’t work. So for six weeks they met for dinner once or twice a week at Sandberg’s six-bedroom home. Sandberg, who goes to bed early and starts e-mailing at 5 A.M., often had to usher the nocturnal Zuckerberg out at midnight. “It was like dating,” says Dave Goldberg, Sandberg’s husband and the C.E.O. of the online company SurveyMonkey. Sandberg says they asked each other, “What do you believe? What do you care about? What’s the mission? It was very philosophical.” Social networking seemed to have better prospects than newspapers and she didn’t want to move to D.C., so she gently turned down Donald Graham.

That winter, Sandberg met with Eric Schmidt, who was then the C.E.O. of Google, about her desire to do something else at the company. He proposed promoting her to chief financial officer, a job she rejected because she didn’t think it gave her enough management responsibility. She asked about becoming the chief operating officer, but Google already had a troika making decisions—Schmidt and the two founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin—and they didn’t want to further complicate things.

By February of 2008, Zuckerberg had concluded that Sandberg would be a perfect fit. “There are people who are really good managers, people who can manage a big organization,” he says. “And then there are people who are very analytic or focussed on strategy. Those two types don’t usually tend to be in the same person. I would put myself much more in the latter camp.” Zuckerberg offered her the job of chief operating officer.

People at Google tried to persuade her to stay, pointing out that Facebook’s chief financial officer would not report to her and that she would not be invited to join its board of directors. But eventually she took the job. Later, Sandberg would tell people that Facebook was a company driven by instinct and human relationships. The point, implicitly, was that Google was not. Sandberg seemed to have insulted some of her former colleagues. “She could have handled her departure more crisply,” a senior Google official says.

Sandberg began work at Facebook in March, asking questions and listening. “She walked up to hundreds of people’s desks and interrupted them and said, ‘Hi, I’m Sheryl Sandberg,’ ” recalls Chris Cox, the vice-president of product, who sits next to Zuckerberg. “It was this overt gesture, like, ‘O.K., let your guard down. I’m not going to hole up with Mark. I’m going to try and have a relationship with you guys.’ ”

Sandberg set up twice-a-week meetings with Zuckerberg, on Monday mornings and Friday afternoons. Today, her workstation, in a cavernous room, is a few feet away from his and the three other senior executives who share connected desks: Cox; Mike Schroepfer, the chief engineer; and Bret Taylor, the C.T.O. “She builds trust because she’s honest,” Cox says. “People can be intimidated by Mark. Sheryl just cuts right through that.”

Zuckerberg says he’s grateful that Sandberg “handles things I don’t want to,” such as advertising strategy, hiring and firing, management, and dealing with political issues. “All that stuff that in other companies I might have to do. And she’s much better at that.”

When Sandberg arrived at Facebook, she admits, some insiders had a “sense of trepidation” about her. They wondered whether she was too corporate, and she was stepping into a company—and a Silicon Valley culture—dominated by men. But her biggest worry, she says, was financial. “There was this open question: Could we make money, ever?” The engineers, as at Google a decade earlier or Twitter now, were primarily interested in building a really cool site; profits, they assumed, would follow. The company’s most obvious business—selling ads—seemed problematic. Users considered their Facebook pages to be private; they didn’t want an ad interrupting them as they chatted with friends. Some people wondered whether Facebook was just a meteor that, like Myspace, would crash. Others thought that Zuckerberg, who was painfully shy, lacked the management skills necessary for success.

Sandberg quickly began trying to figure out how to make Facebook a business. Should the company rely on advertising? On e-commerce? Should it charge a subscription fee? She convened regular meetings with senior executives from 6 to 9 P.M. “I go around the room and ask people, ‘What do you think?’ ” Sandberg said. She welcomed debate, particularly on the issues of revenue and advertising. By late spring, everyone had agreed to rely on advertising, with the ads discreetly presented. By 2010, a company that was bleeding cash when Sandberg arrived had become profitable. Within three years, Facebook grew from a hundred and thirty employees to twenty-five hundred, and from seventy million worldwide users to nearly seven hundred million. 

Read more:

Monday, July 4, 2011

Derek Trucks


[ed.  F'*ing amazing...thirteen years old.  July 4, 1993.]

Photo: Sam Shere, Coney Island, July 4, 1946 (LIFE)
via:

Grow Up, America

Happy birthday, America!

We have a big party planned for you, with fireworks and barbecues and bands playing and lots of fun for your special day.

You are 235 years young. Compared with other countries such as England and China and France and Russia, you are but a strapping lad. Those guys are practically ancient civilizations.

But the truth is, you are no longer a new nation. You are not the child-state you once were. As you have grown into a mature country, we have been filled with a parent’s pride. There are, however, duties and obligations that come with that maturity.

America, it is time to put away the playthings of your childhood, time to reconsider the follies of your youth. You must start acting your age. I am sure you don’t want to hear another lecture (Young man, I’m talking to you!), but think of this as your graduation commencement address. I hope you begin thinking about your place in the world and what you might to grow into after your birthday bash.

Let’s start with:

Infatuation with “ism”s: Every few decades, you manage to get yourself entangled with some philosophy from the wrong side of the tracks. These torrid affairs always end badly.

Every adolescent goes through this phase. You see a pretty ideology from across the room. She bats her big, blue eyes at you, and you fall head over heels. As any more experienced country will tell you, these infatuations are merely a passing fancy. They are not the makings of solid, long-lasting philosophies.

Your parents made sure you had a good upbringing and a Constitution that sets up some fine parameters for you to live by. How about avoiding the passionate flings with these isms and instead work toward being more pragmatic, more practical, even more technocratic?

Infrastructure: As a younger nation, you could party all over the world, intervening in other nations’ affairs, and still make it to work on time the next day. But you’ve really allowed yourself to go to pot.

You need to start taking better care of yourself. Your interstate highway system was once the envy of the world. You crisscrossed the nation with railroad tracks well over a century ago. Your bridges and tunnels were second to none, and your naval ports handled more tonnage than any three nations combined. You discovered electricity, invented the light bulb, strung electrical wires coast to coast. You invented air travel and opened airports in every major city.

Now look at you: Your roads are pitted, your bridges are falling down and your airports look like they belong in a third-world nation. You call that a naval port? Not only do they look like junkyards, they are still a gaping security concern. And don’t get me started on your electrical grid! It is creaky, inefficient and vulnerable to cyberattack.

While you were getting flabby, the rest of the world was hitting the gym. Most of Europe and nearly all of Asia are in much better condition. Even emerging nations such as India and Singapore have better airports, wireless telecom and broadband Internet.

You’d best start taking better care of your infrastructure — it’s the only one you have.

The Ten States Running Out Of Children

The portion of the U.S. population that is under 15 years of age has dropped slightly during the last decade, and the ripple effect of this already has repercussions on the economy. While the resources that children need are different than those of adults, for governments they are not less expensive. Most government expenses have to do with education. However, the recession has added other costs: The costs of food and other programs such as Food Stamps, or the cost of housing as the inventories of foreclosed homes and the number of adults chronically unemployed rises. The challenges vary considerably from state to state because in some the percentage of the population under 15 has fallen sharply.

The problems of the young are are not discussed much as the focus of the press and Washington policy has been on those people who are elderly now and the generation of Baby Boomers who are just behind them. The federal debt and increases in the deficit have put the retirement support of these people at risk. The credit crisis and state and municipal deficits have spawned an austerity movement that is unprecedented in U.S. history.

Children and young teenagers are, in many cases, the grandchildren of the older Baby Boomers or of the men and women who were very young at the time of the Korean War — people who are or will be in most need of the social safety nets provided by the government. The gulf between the needs of the aged and children highlights the pressure on young and middle aged adults to provide the tax revenue to support these dependent demographic groups. Unemployment among people between 18 and 24 tends to be high compared to the national average, so the tax burden to cover services rests with an even smaller percentage of the American population.

Another result of a drop in the percentage of the population that is under 15 is that this group will offer only modest competition to Americans who are 50 and older for jobs in a decade. A Nielsen survey done earlier this year showed that 22% of Americans and Canadians expect to work past the age of 70. A more recent Gallup poll reported that “More Americans are worried about not having enough money for retirement (66%) than are worried about seven other financial matters.” The lower the number of people who are younger than 15 now, the easier it should be for the aged to find jobs. It may be that 70 is the new 50. This may not be true physically, but psychologically it is. The large Pew research study on aging done two years ago reported that 62% of Americans do not think they are old until they are 75. Twenty-seven percent put that age at 85.

Bobby Mcferrin, Richard Bona


Work on the Sea, Erik Johansson
via: