Friday, August 10, 2012

Reviews of White Noise Recordings


Due to the ever-increasing loudening of the universe, white noise is now a multi-billion-dollar-grossing industry. I just made that fact up! It's probably not true in the slightest! But there are a TON of albums, apps, websites and purveyors, all devoted to white noise. That is because some of us cannot sleep without it, due to exterior noise and/or snoring, or because of our fear of silence and/or death, or also because we are tired of babies crying.

The best way—with a few exceptions!—to use white noise at night is with an iPhone or iPod docked in some kind of speaker-thing. Or from your computer to speakers! (As long as everything else is shut off.) Whatever is in the room, it'll work. Don't go crazy. Don't try to "game" the "system." You go to sleep war with the sleep aids that you have. You set that puppy to "repeat one" track and turn off shuffle and boom, done. I personally find that if I turn my speakers away from the bed, so that sound is bouncing off the walls and around the room, I get more out of it. And then I use it on headphones on planes. Here is my guide to everything in my white noise rotation.

Brown Noise
From Simply Noise
Nice, but very flat. Doesn't have gradations in tone. Does a decent standing fan imitation though. But slightly forceful. Their white noise and pink noise are not ideal.

White Noise Blowdryer
From "White Noise"
Do you like hairdryers? Well, here's a heinous, irritating recording of a hairdryer for you!

Victoria Falls
From WhiteNoiseMP3s.com
This has a nice "wide scope" sound. The waterness of it is not distracting. The full 66 minutes of this "quasi-binaural field recording" has both low and high tones, which is important, but is concentrated in the medium spectrum. Because it's "real audio," it is actually random noise, and patternless, which is terrific. Feels like: sleeping in a hammock without all the discomfort and bugs. Downside: you might wake up having to pee desperately. (...)

3 Hour Nap
From White Noise Therapy Volume 2
Oh man. This is deep. It's not good for snorers. But it is great for sleeping on your own. Best possible use for this is actually playing on your iPhone from under your pillow. It's a dreary kind of drone, but when close to your head at low volume, it's extremely soothing—the way you'd imagine a train ride should be, but never is, here in disappointing real life. Can be weird on planes, as it's very similar to wind noise and actually somehow embeds with the plane noise.

Sleepy Jet Cabin
From WhiteNoiseMP3s.com
Speaking of. Ugh! I don't really want my plane to sound MORE like a plane.

Deep Sleep Therapy
From Deeper State: White Noise for Infants
This is like a frosty white cocoon of deep noise. Excuse me I'll be righ zzzzzzzzzzz. Best for sleeping alone. Some of the other cuts on this classic album are decent too. (See also: "Safe and Sound" and "Snugglebug." Avoid "Goodnight Moon" and "Counting Sheep." Too shrill.)

by Choire Sicha, The Awl |  Read more:

Gorillaz feat. Andre 3000 and James Murphy


[ed. Converse, I never knew you had in you. The (excellent) Gorillaz song gets lost in the mix, so here's another version.]

Charles Sheeler, Golden Gate, 1955


During a visit to San Francisco, Sheeler took a number of photographs to use for his paintings. This unusual view of the Golden Gate Bridge, painted a few months after he returned east, resulted from superimposing a number of those 35-millimeter slides.
via:

Future Foods


Volatile food prices and a growing population mean we have to rethink what we eat, say food futurologists. So what might we be serving up in 20 years' time?

It's not immediately obvious what links Nasa, the price of meat and brass bands, but all three are playing a part in shaping what we will eat in the future and how we will eat it.

Rising food prices, the growing population and environmental concerns are just a few issues that have organisations - including the United Nations and the government - worrying about how we will feed ourselves in the future.

In the UK, meat prices are anticipated to have a huge impact on our diets. Some in the food industry estimate they could double in the next five to seven years, making meat a luxury item.

"In the West many of us have grown up with cheap, abundant meat," says food futurologist Morgaine Gaye.

"Rising prices mean we are now starting to see the return of meat as a luxury. As a result we are looking for new ways to fill the meat gap."

So what will fill such gaps and our stomachs - and how will we eat it?

Insects

Insects, or mini-livestock as they could become known, will become a staple of our diet, says Gaye.

It's a win-win situation. Insects provide as much nutritional value as ordinary meat and are a great source of protein, according to researchers at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. They also cost less to raise than cattle, consume less water and do not have much of a carbon footprint. Plus, there are an estimated 1,400 species that are edible to man.

Gaye is not talking about bushtucker-style witchetty grubs arriving on a plate near you. Insect burgers and sausages are likely to resemble their meat counterparts.

"Things like crickets and grasshoppers will be ground down and used as an ingredient in things like burgers."

The Dutch government is putting serious money into getting insects into mainstream diets. It recently invested one million euros (£783,000) into research and to prepare legislation governing insect farms.

A large chunk of the world's population already eat insects as a regular part of their diet. Caterpillars and locusts are popular in Africa, wasps are a delicacy in Japan, crickets are eaten in Thailand.

But insects will need an image overhaul if they are to become more palatable to the squeamish Europeans and North Americans, says Gaye, who is a member of the Experimental Food Society.

"They will become popular when we get away from the word insects and use something like mini-livestock."

by Denise Winterman, BBC News |  Read more:

Thursday, August 9, 2012

The Meaning of Square


One small step for vanilla lattes, one giant leap for mankind, is how the world characterized the deal yesterday between Starbucks and Square, the new mobile payment company that, in addition to the iconic square swiper shown above, can identify people and their financial information as they approach a register, match the merchant with the customer's face and payment info and allow transactions to happen without cash, credit, or even arms:

"That's $5."
"I'm Derek Thompson."
"Thanks, you're all set."

... and I'm out the door with my drink.

This is what a cashless society looks like. And it is cool. But, like, how cool really?

Let's count some of the ways it is important: for merchants and for customers. For merchants, point-of-sale technology is awful, outdated, and expensive. Credit cards are a hassle, cash and coins are cumbersome, and payment software can be buggy and complicated. Square is simple. It not only de-kluges the process of ringing somebody up, but also it humanizes the interaction by making the point of contact all about two people's faces rather than a credit card and a swiper. That's nice.

For customers, Square eliminates friction. This is either very good or very dangerous, and maybe both. Paying for stuff shouldn't be such a chore. Some merchants take one credit card, but not another, or they require a $10 minimum payment, or they only take cash, and they've run out of certain bills. These are first world problems, to be sure, but we are living in a world of first world problems and solving them in an elegant way is no small feat. By divorcing paying from any sort of mindful action, frictionless transactions make us forget about money. That's good news if you think customers should spend more money. It's bad news if you think most American families aren't thinking mindfully about money enough, already.

These are innovations of convenience, mostly, but they arguably build a gateway to bigger things: for data, for advertising, and for, yes, society. The data created with millions of digitized interactions could provide deeper records of what people are buying and how much they're paying for it -- the sort of information that would be important to corporate research departments or macro-economists. And the GPS capabilities lend themselves easily to targeted advertising. Wired paints a picture of the future:
You're walking down the street. It's hot. The Starbucks a block away sends you a message that your favorite hot-weather order - venti skinny latte on ice -- is available to you at a dollar off. You accept the offer, and with a few taps, add an almond biscotti to the tab. Then you stroll into the Starbucks. Everything is ready when you arrive - you simply pick it up, the barista checks out your punim, and you're out the door. 
When I read the first batch of stories about Square, my reaction was, "This sounds pretty fun. But is it revolutionary? Are we so lazy and pressed for time that disrupting the action of taking out your credit card is a gosh-wow innovative leap?"
I think the answer is two-fold: (1) Innovations that save time, even just a little bit of time, are real innovations, because in any advanced economy time and attention are currency and creating more of them can make us all richer; (2) What's important about Square isn't just the transactions it makes more efficient but also the cashless world it pulls closer to the present.

by Derek Thompson, The Atlantic |  Read more:

All in a Dream

Space colonies. That’s the latest thing you hear, from the heralds of the future. President Gingrich is going to set up a state on the moon. The Dutch company Mars One intends to establish a settlement on the Red Planet by 2023. We’re heading towards a “multi-planetary civilization,” says Elon Musk, the CEO of SpaceX. Our future lies in the stars, we’re even told.

As a species of megalomania, this is hard to top. As an image of technological salvation, it is more plausible than the one where we upload our brains onto our computers, surviving forever in a paradise of circuitry. But not a lot more plausible. The resources required to maintain a colony in space would be, well, astronomical. People would have to be kept alive, indefinitely, in incredibly inhospitable conditions. There may be planets with earthlike conditions, but the nearest ones we know about, as of now, are 20 light years away. That means that a round trip at 10 percent the speed of light, an inconceivable rate (it is several hundred times faster than anything we’ve yet achieved), would take 400 years.

But never mind the logistics. If we live long enough as a species, we might overcome them, or at least some of them: energy from fusion (which always seems to be about 50 years away) and so forth. Think about what life in a space colony would be like: a hermetically sealed, climate-controlled little nothing of a place. Refrigerated air, synthetic materials, and no exit. It would be like living in an airport. An airport in Antarctica. Forever. When I hear someone talking about space colonies, I think, that’s a person who has never studied the humanities. That’s a person who has never stopped to think about what it feels like to go through an average day—what life is about, what makes it worth living, what makes it endurable. A person blessed with a technological imagination and the absence of any other kind.

by William Deresiewicz, American Scholar |  Read more:

Ionas Wood
via:

Shadow Catchers from the X series by Floris Neusüss, 1971

‘I Don’t Want to See Him Go’

For years, Mel Stewart avoided swimming. Oh, at first he did some broadcasting, and he stayed around the sport, that seemed the natural transition. But that didn’t feel right to him. Swimming was part of his old life. He found the conversations he had with people about his Olympic experience were stilted and odd. He did not want to live in the past. Anyway, how could he explain why it meant so much to him? How could he explain it to himself? “Swimming,” he says, “is so painful. And it’s so lonely. It’s a very lonely sport. You spend all your time alone and muffled and inside your head.”

He went to Hollywood and wrote scripts. He got married, started a family. He involved himself in a few business deals here and there. For the most part, he left swimming behind. I ask him if he missed swimming, and he says that it did not really dawn on him much. His life was interesting. He felt no aching void. He was still an Olympic champion, and that led to some opportunities, and he kept an eye on swimming from a distance. But for the most part, he was on to the next thing.

Then in 2007, he decided to watch Phelps swim the 200-meter butterfly at the World Championships. Phelps swam it in 1:52.09 — more than three seconds faster than Stewart’s fastest time 16 years earlier — and something thoroughly unexpected happened.

“It was like a religious experience,” Mel says. “I don’t even have the words for it. It was like this guy had just painted the most beautiful 200 meters I had ever seen. It was just gorgeous. And I felt this intimate connection. It’s like he was doing something so amazing and beautiful, and I was maybe one of two or three guys on the planet who could really understand it and appreciate it. … I was unsettled for weeks.”

Mel says it was watching that swim — seeing Michael Phelps’ greatness not the way we as fans see it, but the way that the greatest butterfly swimmer of his time saw it — that made him realize what was missing. He went to his wife, Tiffany, and said, “I want to be involved in swimming again.” Seven months later, he was interviewing Phelps on a pool deck (“I was star-struck,” he says) and doing some swimming writing on the side.

Earlier this year, Mel and his wife started a swimming website — swimswam.com — that he says has received more than 3 million page views and more than 500,000 unique users. He says that unexpected success, like its inspiration, is due to Michael Phelps. But perhaps the greatest gift that Phelps has given Mel is that after all these years he has brought swimming back into his life.

“You know what’s a crazy feeling?” Mel says. “You get into the water and you realize that you’re better in the water than you are walking on land. It’s like you become a fish. You get in the water and it just feels right in your brain.”

by Joe Posnanski, Joe Blog |  Read more:
Photo: USA Today Sports

Raging Bulls: How Wall Street Got Addicted to Light-Speed Trading


One of the most interesting things about the catastrophe at Knight Capital Group—the trading firm that lost $440 million this week—is the speed of the collapse. News reports describe the bulk of the bad trades happening in less than an hour, a computer-driven descent that has the financial community once again asking if its pursuit of profits has led to software agents that are fast yet dumb and out of control. We’re posting this story in advance of its publication in Wired’s September issue because it examines how Wall Street has gotten to the point where flash failures come with increasing frequency, and how much further traders seem willing to go in pursuit of ever-greater speed.

The 2012 New York Battle of the Quants, a two-day conference of algorithmic asset traders, took place in New York City at the end of March, just a few days after a group of researchers admitted they had made a mistake in an experiment that purported to overturn modern physics. The scientists had claimed to observe subatomic particles called neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light. But they were wrong; about six months later, they retracted their findings. And while “Special Relativity Upheld” is the world’s most predictable headline, the news that neutrinos actually obey the laws of physics as currently understood marked the end of a brief and tantalizing dream for quants—the physicists, engineers, and mathematicians-turned-financiers who generate as much as 55 percent of all US stock trading. In the pursuit of market-beating returns, sending a signal at faster than light speed could provide the ultimate edge: a way to make trades in the past, the financial equivalent of betting on a horse race after it has been run.

“Between the time the first paper came out in September and last week, a guy in my shop had written two papers explaining how it could be true,” a graying former physicist said ruefully, sipping coffee near an oversize Keith Haring canvas that dominated the room at Christie’s auction house where the conference was held. “Of course, you’d need a particle accelerator to make it work.”

If that were all it took, then by now someone would be building one. One of the major themes of this year’s conference was “the race to the bottom,” the cost-is-no-object competition for the absolute theoretical minimum trade time. This variable, called latency, is rapidly approaching the physical limits of the universe set by quantum mechanics and relativity. But perhaps not even Einstein fully appreciated the degree to which electromagnetic waves bend in the presence of money. Kevin McPartland of the Tabb Group, which compiles information on the financial industry, projected that companies would spend $2.2 billion in 2010 on trading infrastructure—the high-speed servers that process trades and the fiber-optic cables that link them in a globe-spanning network. And that was before projects were launched to connect New York and London by a new transatlantic cable and London and Tokyo by way of the Arctic Ocean, all just to cut a few hundredths of a second off the time it takes to receive data or send an order.

High-frequency traders are a subset of quants, investors who make money the newfangled way: a fraction of a cent at a time, multiplied by hundreds of shares, tens of thousands of times a day. These traders occupy an anomalous position on Wall Street, carrying themselves with a distinctive mixture of diffidence and arrogance that sets them apart from the pure, unmixed arrogance of investment bankers. A pioneering high-frequency trading firm, Tradeworx, has its relatively humble offices two flights up from an Urban Outfitters in a sleepy New Jersey suburb. Twenty people work there, about half of them on the trading floor, monitoring on triple screens the fractions of a penny as they mount up, second by second. Roughly 1.5 percent of the total volume of stocks traded on US exchanges on a given day will pass, however fleetingly, through the hushed, sunlit, brick-walled room.

On the first day of the New York conference, Aaron Brown, a legendary quant and former professional poker player, took the stage in rumpled chinos and a leather jacket to lecture the assembly on game theory. He began his talk by saying, “3.14159,” and then pausing expectantly. From the back of the room came the response: “265358.” Together they made up the first 12 digits of pi—a geek shibboleth. “You won’t see a lot of masters of the universe here,” said Charles Jones, a professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School. “A lot of these guys, if they’re wearing a tie, it might be the only one they own.”

Faster and faster turn the wheels of finance, increasing the risk that they will spin out of control, that a perturbation somewhere in the system will scale up to a global crisis in a matter of seconds. “For the first time in financial history, machines can execute trades far faster than humans can intervene,” said Andrew Haldane, a regulatory official with the Bank of England, at another recent conference. “That gap is set to widen.”

by Jerry Adler, Wired |  Read more:
Photo: Tim Flach/Getty

An E-Mail Service With Lots of Smarts

“Coming soon, from the creator of the Macarena!”... “New, from the founders of Myspace!”... “He has the same agent as Steven Seagal!”

You don’t hear phrases like that much. Generally, once a hot property becomes a lame has-been, you don’t base your marketing on it.

But you might think that’s what Microsoft is doing with its new free Web-based e-mail service,Outlook.com. “From the company that brought you Hotmail!”

Hotmail is still the world’s largest e-mail service, with 324 million members. But Gmail, only six years old, already has 278 million, and Microsoft was getting nervous.

And there were other good reasons for Microsoft to start fresh: because times have changed and e-mail has changed; because e-mail isn’t the only thing you do online anymore (see also Facebook, Twitter); and, frankly, because lots of people still think of Hotmail as, you know, Hotmail.

That is, Hotmail still suffers from its early image as a cesspool of spam, fake addresses and blinking ads. Even today, a Hotmail address still says “unsophisticated loser” in some circles.

Outlook.com won’t have that problem. It’s clean, white and attractive, even on a cellphone. (It matches the look of the Mail program in the coming Windows 8 and the Outlook program in the coming Office 13.) Somebody put thought into the placement and typography of every element — and tried to get as far away from the Times Square clutter of Hotmail as possible. (...)

Outlook.com represents a rethink of what the basic features should be in an e-mail program. It acknowledges, for example, that a huge proportion of e-mail these days is auto-generated: spam, newsletters, social networking updates.

So Outlook.com has buttons that, with one click, sweep all e-mail from a particular sender into the trash (a feature inherited from Hotmail). It also has a one-click Unsubscribe button that removes you from the mailing lists of legitimate companies, much as Google does. It can even auto-delete all but the most recent message from a company — perfect for daily deals like Groupon.

Outlook.com uses other smarts to categorize your messages. It has auto-detectors that look for messages from social media networks, messages containing photos, messages with package-tracking details, and so on.

Actually, those tracking messages are particularly awesome. Outlook.com inserts, at the top of such a message, the actual location of your package in big type, so you don’t have to trundle off to a Web site to look it up.

by David Pogue, NY Times |  Read more:
Illustration: Stewart Goldenberg

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

What Made 'Nasa Mohawk Guy' Such a Successful Meme?

Forty-eight hours ago, Bobak Ferdowsi had fewer than 200 Twitter followers. This morning, he has almost 40,000. Ferdowsi, also known as"Nasa Mohawk Guy", became an internet sensation after his unusual hairdo caught the eye of those watching the Mars Curiosity landing on Nasa TV. Within hours, he was a trending topic on Tumblr and became a trending hashtag on Twitter. He's been immortalised in image macros,comic fan art, and even T-shirts on Cafepress. While his meteoric rise to fame may not be as remarkable as the Mars landing itself, it prompts the question: what is it about Bobak Ferdowsi that turned him into a meme?

There is no magic formula when it comes to creating memes or making "viral" content. There are certainly ways to stack the deck: content that is humorous, incongruous, and/or part of the zeitgeist is likely to be spread through social networks more often than, say, a boring interview or advert. In looking at the top memes of the past several years, there are few discernible patterns that can be pulled out: some, like LOLCats, have become part of the meme canon; others, like Pepper Spray Cop, became instant phenomena and faded away just as quickly.

Ultimately, memes spread because on some level, they resonate with their audience: people share content that is meaningful to them in one way or another. When it comes to the most popular memes, that underlying meaning often differs across a variety of audiences. In his explanation of Susan Boyle's overnight success and transformation into a meme, Professor Henry Jenkins of USC Annenberg said: "There's no need to identify a single cause for why people spread this content. Different people spread this content for different reasons."

When it comes to Ferdowsi, the reasons why he has struck a chord seem to fall under one of three headings. One is that he is a "hot nerd". A majority of the tweets and coverage featuring Ferdowsi comment on his appearance, or women's reactions to his status as a "sexy scientist", including a plethora of marriage proposals.

Second, there has been a large response from the Persian community. Ferdowsi is of Persian descent, and many Persians and Persian-Americans have tweeted about him, saying how proud they are that he represents their community, providing a positive image of Iranian-Americans.

The third element of the Nasa Mohawk Guy meme that contributes to its popularity is that it provides a framework for cultural commentary and content creation. Ferdowsi's look has provided people with a distinctive and widely recognised image, and the various elements that have resonated with different groups – his attractiveness, his uniqueness – have come to represent certain values. By remixing existing images or creating new ones, Nasa Mohawk Guy provides an alternative medium for discussing societal issues, such as the importance of scientific research in American culture, or that an attractive scientist has gotten more media hype than the mission he was working on.

by Kate Miltner, The Guardian |  Read more:

Rites of Passage


Eddie died. It didn’t bother me. Eddie was an old man the entire time I knew him, a relative I didn’t get to know until I was 12. “We’re going to visit your Great-Uncle Eddie and Aunt Emily in Falmouth,” my mother said one summer during a camping trip on Cape Cod, said it like we were just stopping at a gas station. The sentence served the double purpose, outlining our itinerary while also letting us know that some people named Eddie and Emily existed. And that, further, we were related. Apparently we’d visited them briefly when I was four. It didn’t ring a bell. So, on the car ride over, Mom turned to us every few minutes and offered facts without context, trying to build some hype around these people. “They lived in Okinawa for years.” “Eddie was a pilot.” It was like cramming before visiting some bizarre country: their main exports, I assumed, were hard candy, corduroy, and judgment. For my mother they were sweet relatives she hadn’t had time to visit. For me, at 12, the news registered just above neutral, as only slightly interesting. Mom may as well have been telling us about some lame, peripheral color in a box of crayons. These were burnt sienna relatives.

My parents, my two siblings, and I pulled up to Eddie and Emily’s house in our blue Caprice station wagon, a species of car that, like certain dinosaurs, had achieved absurd proportions and freakishly specialized features only then to become extinct. The car’s body, the length of a Camry tailgating a Prius, got wider at the end like an ant that had let itself go. The back space would flip up to form two more backward-facing seats, as if the designers at Chevrolet were both encouraging drivers to conceive more children and providing an actual location to do so. In this way-back area, miles from the reach of Dad’s palm, a Wild West,Lord of the Flies subculture would develop. Pinches went unpunished, thigh space was taken through eminent domain. Little things no one would miss, and sometimes socks, were slipped through the pop-out window slits as we drove. Cars behind us were given the thumbs up and then, as we got a little older, mocked for their enthusiastic replies.

We piled out of that airplane hangar of a car and crammed into the neatly decorated living room of Eddie and Emily’s Cape Cod–style house, a place full of doilies, dusted hardwood, and stiff, 1950s-looking couches. Everyone looked at everyone else pleasantly, blinking and occasionally saying words. My mother tried to kindle the conversation, poking at decades-old embers. For me, the slow conversation was nodes on a family tree morphing into real people, the way dots on a map, once visited, become real places where you can get a good burger or picture yourself living—or places you decide are only worth driving through, not worth stopping at again.

The exception to the general stillness was Emily, a slender, energetic woman flitting around the house with hospitality. The sister of a grandfather who had died years before I was born—a man I was always told I resembled—Emily kept singling me out with glances, wistfully saying her dead brother’s name out loud, and then feeding me elaborate meals. It was an arrangement we both accepted immediately. Long after everyone else got full, I kept taking her up on her offers of coffee cake and hot dogs. So we sat, me chewing and her staring, each of our hairstyles a variation on the bowl cut.

“Eddie likes fishing,” my mother said about the World War II bomber pilot staring at me. “Maybe he’ll take you fishing.”

And so, just like that, my father and I committed to waking up nauseatingly early the next morning. As an awkward, hate-filled preteen, I found fishing to be the one hobby timeless and genuine enough to keep me marginally tethered to the world, like when a felon comes out of his cell to do watercolors. I wore my best No Fear T-shirt and a bead necklace with enough black in it to still fit in with the Goth-lite look I was cultivating that summer. Eddie had flown more than 50 high-risk bombing missions over Europe and northern Africa, could play Chopin sonatas on the piano, and referred to staying in bed past 5 A.M. as sleeping in. The highlight of my year was the Vans Warped Tour. We kept our conversation to fishing.

As the outboard on the 17-foot Boston Whaler worked on the light chop, chugging us out to Vineyard Sound, the air was cool, smelling of mist and gasoline. Eddie wore mud boots, a frumpy baseball cap, and a sagging orange jacket. He looked like Walter Matthau doing an impression of Walter Matthau. As he drove, Eddie would periodically glance down at this new device called a GPS, into which he claimed to have fed coordinates. The patches of fog would clear to reveal behind them denser patches of fog. This happened several times until, finally, we came to a place that looked like all the other water we had crossed. Except now, in the distance, sat a single boat, the only object visible anywhere. Eddie looked at the boat, down at his GPS, and then back up at the boat.

“That son of a bitch is in my spot,” he said. My father and I paused, looked at each other, and laughed. Eddie, it turned out, was the man.

If that’s not what made me like him, it was his talent at fishing. “Now we’ll just drift across the top of them,” he would say, and every 10 minutes we pulled winter flounder and fluke up over the chrome guardrails and plopped them onto the boat’s gut-stained deck. Conceptually, I’d known that fluke and flounder were silly, sideways fish, perfect for supporting roles in underwater Disney movies. Up close, they looked like beastly hallucinations, angry pancakes come to life, unhappy they’d been forced to sleep on their side for the duration of their existence. Eddie clubbed one on the head, said, “He won’t be right after that” in the mock voice of a doctor breaking bad news to a family, and tossed it in the cooler. We had a great time that day, and because he was not a grandfather I was required to visit, or a friend I’d call to play street hockey with, I wouldn’t see him again for three years.

by Steve Macone, American Scholar |  Read more:
Photo: USFWS

How Apple and Amazon Security Flaws Led to My Epic Hacking

In the space of one hour, my entire digital life was destroyed. First my Google account was taken over, then deleted. Next my Twitter account was compromised, and used as a platform to broadcast racist and homophobic messages. And worst of all, my AppleID account was broken into, and my hackers used it to remotely erase all of the data on my iPhone, iPad, and MacBook.

In many ways, this was all my fault. My accounts were daisy-chained together. Getting into Amazon let my hackers get into my Apple ID account, which helped them get into Gmail, which gave them access to Twitter. Had I used two-factor authentication for my Google account, it’s possible that none of this would have happened, because their ultimate goal was always to take over my Twitter account and wreak havoc. Lulz.

Had I been regularly backing up the data on my MacBook, I wouldn’t have had to worry about losing more than a year’s worth of photos, covering the entire lifespan of my daughter, or documents and e-mails that I had stored in no other location.

Those security lapses are my fault, and I deeply, deeply regret them.

But what happened to me exposes vital security flaws in several customer service systems, most notably Apple’s and Amazon’s. Apple tech support gave the hackers access to my iCloud account. Amazon tech support gave them the ability to see a piece of information — a partial credit card number — that Apple used to release information. In short, the very four digits that Amazon considers unimportant enough to display in the clear on the web are precisely the same ones that Apple considers secure enough to perform identity verification. The disconnect exposes flaws in data management policies endemic to the entire technology industry, and points to a looming nightmare as we enter the era of cloud computing and connected devices.

This isn’t just my problem. Since Friday, Aug. 3, when hackers broke into my accounts, I’ve heard from other users who were compromised in the same way, at least one of whom was targeted by the same group.

‬Moreover, if your computers aren’t already cloud-connected devices, they will be soon. Apple is working hard to get all of its customers to use iCloud. Google’s entire operating system is cloud-based. And Windows 8, the most cloud-centric operating system yet, will hit desktops by the tens of millions in the coming year. My experience leads me to believe that cloud-based systems need fundamentally different security measures. Password-based security mechanisms — which can be cracked, reset, and socially engineered — no longer suffice in the era of cloud computing.

I realized something was wrong at about 5 p.m. on Friday. I was playing with my daughter when my iPhone suddenly powered down. I was expecting a call, so I went to plug it back in.

It then rebooted to the setup screen. This was irritating, but I wasn’t concerned. I assumed it was a software glitch. And, my phone automatically backs up every night. I just assumed it would be a pain in the ass, and nothing more. I entered my iCloud login to restore, and it wasn’t accepted. Again, I was irritated, but not alarmed.

I went to connect the iPhone to my computer and restore from that backup — which I had just happened to do the other day. When I opened my laptop, an iCal message popped up telling me that my Gmail account information was wrong. Then the screen went gray, and asked for a four-digit PIN.

I didn’t have a four-digit PIN.

By now, I knew something was very, very wrong. For the first time it occurred to me that I was being hacked. Unsure of exactly what was happening, I unplugged router and cable modem, turned off the Mac Mini we use as an entertainment center, grabbed my wife’s phone, and called AppleCare, the company’s tech support service, and spoke with a rep for the next hour and a half.

It wasn’t the first call they had had that day about my account. In fact, I later found out that a call had been placed just a little more than a half an hour before my own. But the Apple rep didn’t bother to tell me about the first call concerning my account, despite the 90 minutes I spent on the phone with tech support. Nor would Apple tech support ever tell me about the first call voluntarily — it only shared this information after I asked about it. And I only knew about the first call because a hacker told me he had made the call himself.

by Mat Honan, Wired |  Read more:
Photo: Ariel Zambelich/Wired. Illustration: Ross Patton/Wired

The Leafy Sea Dragon

The incredibly beautiful, incredibly intricate Leafy Sea Dragon (Phycodurus eques) lives amongst the rocky reefs, seaweed beds and seagrass meadows of Australia’s southern waters. They are given a fragile appearance by their gossamer, leafy appendages, which actually evolved as camouflage to blend in with floating pieces of seaweed, and their movements mimic the swaying of seaweed and kelp—they’re one of the few species that actually hide from predators by moving. They also have long sharp spines along the side of their body, and can grow to a length of 35 centimetres. Curiously, males are the child bearers, incubating the eggs on a spongy brood patch on their tail. They’re currently listed as a threatened species because pollution threatens their habitat, and also because they’re frequently (and illegally) taken by divers to keep as pets.

(Image Credit: Caelum Mero)
via:

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Songs in the Key of Death

I first learned about David Young from an ad in the quarterly trade magazine of the Dodge Company, the world’s largest supplier of mortuary chemicals. The Spring 2008 issue of Dodge Magazine included articles on “airbrushing cosmetics for funeral professionals” and how funeral directors should respond in the case of a mass murder in a small-town shopping mall (be “like French waiters…[who can] do the job and not be noticed”). In addition to embalming chemicals, Dodge also has a hand in the sale and distribution of miscellaneous funerary goods—including memorial collages of softly lit photos that “make women squeal with delight when they see the portraits for the first time.”

That there is a “funeral industry” in the first place can seem morbid and indecent. Anyone who remembers Six Feet Under may feel they know the ins and outs, but the reality is certainly more disturbing. Flipping through a trade magazine advertising “vibrant” urns and pink-hued arterial conditioners does nothing to contradict this impression, nor does Young’s ad. In the full-page color layout, Young’s musical oeuvre is described as “perfect background music for your funeral home.” Wearing dangerously tight pants and a puffy shirt coyly unbuttoned to reveal a shadow of chest hair, David Young hawks a new age of new-age music for funerals. “In emotional times such as these,” the ad claims, “it’s important to set the right tone.”

In 2004, Craig Caldwell of the Dodge Company met Young at a funeral directors’ trade show in Chicago. Impressed, Caldwell made a distribution arrangement with the musician and has since been selling Young’s recordings to his clients—funeral directors who rely on Dodge for everything from embalming fluid to a disinfectant called Lemocide. On the phone from his office, Caldwell explained that the music’s emotional restraint, being “lighter, airier, more enticing to sharing feelings and thoughts, than dirges,” made it seem like a good match for funeral homes. This preference for lightness mirrors other changes in modern funerals, a business that, though still traditional by many accounts, is becoming increasingly secular and informal. “People rarely wear black to funerals anymore,” Caldwell told me when I interviewed him in 2008. “Except for the older generation. But children today, they don’t even wear a coat and a tie anymore.”

Young is the theme song to your grandmother’s memorial, the pop radio of your cousin’s wake. That funeral homes now have a soundtrack, one that provides us with a subtle, uncomplicated sense of recognition—as minimalist guru Brian Eno would call it, an ambience—shouldn’t be a surprise. Rather than a nuisance or intrusion, this easy listening could be a way of mitigating disruptive grief.

by Nicole Pasulka, The Morning News |  Read more: 
Jacob Feige, Saiga Recorder, 2011. Courtesy the artist.

Will Wright Wants to Make a Game Out of Life Itself


For almost 30 years, Will Wright’s creations have attracted people who would never have played videogames. He’s also managed the trick of developing games that enthrall hardcore fans while making rabid players out of novices. The secret: In Wright’s worlds, there is no win or lose—there’s just the game.

He’s best known for creating the Sim franchise: SimCity, The Sims, and other titles. These unlikely blockbusters—more than 180 million sold so far—drew on the works of arcane architectural theorists, urban planners, and astrophysicists, yet they were consistently addictive. They thrived thanks to a concept Wright calls possibility space: the scope of actions or reactions a player can undertake. Most videogames give players a narrow possibility space: Do you want to kill the bad guys with bullets or grenades? Take the door on the right or the left?

Wright and his team at Maxis, the development studio he cofounded in 1987, blew past those constraints, creating an infinitely flexible gameworld limited only by the skill and imagination of the player. In Wright’s best work, players have so much leeway to determine their own objectives that the distinction between game player and game designer blurs.

In 2009, after more than 20 years at Maxis, Wright stepped down from day-to-day duties to form Stupid Fun Club, an entertainment development think tank. He sat down with Wired in Stupid Fun’s Berkeley studio to look back at his career, offer hints about upcoming projects, and speculate about what the future holds for us all—gamers or not. (...)

Baker: How did you start fiddling with computers?

Wright: I was very mechanical, very involved in building models, which evolved into building robots. I got my first computer when I was 20 years old and taught myself to program in order to connect to the robots I was building—to model the motion of a hydraulic robot arm, for example. That’s what first sucked me into writing software. When I learned to program, I realized that you could model the behavior of a system through time, not just a snapshot of it.

Baker: When did you go from playing around with this stuff to saying, “I’m going to be a commercial game designer”?

Wright: I was just fascinated with how the computer worked. Back then it was possible for one person to pretty much fully understand the system—every aspect, from the structure of the hardware to memory management. When I was 20 years old, around 1980, I was living in New York, and there was one computer store in the whole city that sold the Apple II. They had a few simple games in Ziploc bags on the wall and I started thinking, “Maybe I should try making a game, because then I can make all of my computer expenses tax-deductible.” [Laughs.] Then I bought a Commodore 64 when it first came out in 1982 and dedicated myself to learning everything I could about the machine.

Baker: Since then, has there been a common thread that runs through your career?

Wright: It’s really been about trying to construct games around the user, making them the center of the universe. How can you give players more creative leverage and let them show off that creativity to other people? (...)

Baker: How did Bungeling Bay lead to your next game, SimCity?

Wright: I wanted Bungeling Bay to have a world large enough to get lost in, so I wrote a program that would let me put down coastlines, roads, and buildings. I found that I was having much more fun building these little worlds than flying around and blowing them up. SimCity evolved from that—I got interested in building a game where players are in the role of creators.

Baker: And Bungeling Bay‘s “industrial food chain” morphed into a far more sophisticated system in SimCity.

Wright: I started researching urban planning and urban dynamics, and I came across the work of Jay Forrester, the father of modern system simulations. Back in the ’50s at MIT, he actually tried to simulate whole cities on a rudimentary computer. And then I moved into classic economic theory and urban theorists like Jane Jacobs and Kevin Lynch.

by Chris Baker, Wired |  Read more:
Photo: Nigel Parry

The Point of Exclamation

Anybody who has ever logged on knows that online writing begets exclamation points. A lot of exclamation points! Mocking this punctuational predilection is easy and fun. An amusing blog called “Excessive Exclamation!!” features photos of, for example, a Carl’s Jr. printed receipt with the words “PLEASE LET US KNOW HOW WE DID!!!” Another naysayer is Steve Martin, who recently wryly Tweeted:
Today, @SteepCanyon and I play with the Boston Pops! I must be excited, because I used one of my few remaining exclaimation marks.
David Shipley, the executive editor of Bloomberg View and a former Op-Ed editor at this newspaper, and Will Schwalbe, authors of “Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better,” speculate that the trend stems in part from the nature of online media. “Because email is without affect, it has a dulling quality that almost necessitates kicking everything up a notch just to bring it to where it would normally be,” they write. But what if a particular point needs to be stressed beyond where it would normally be? Well, you need to kick it up an additional notch, with another exclamation point, or three. The unsurprising result has been Weimar-level exclamation inflation, where (it sometimes seems) you have to raise your voice to a scream merely to be heard, and a sentence without blingy punctuation comes across like a whisper.

My 21-year-old daughter once criticized my habit of ending text-message sentences with a period. For a piece of information delivered without prejudice, she said, you don’t need any punctuation at the end (“Movie starts at 6”). An exclamation point is minimally acceptable enthusiasm (“See you there!”). But a period just comes off as sarcastic (“Good job on the dishes.”). For similar reasons, the Obama campaign has encountered blowback over the punctuation in its slogan for the 2012 campaign, which is “Forward.” — period included. Austan Goolsbee, the former chairman of the National Economic Council, has been quoted as complaining that because of the period, the feel of the slogan is “like ‘forward, now stop.’”

Habitual e-mailers, texters and posters convey quite precise nuances through punctuation, which is after all one of the points of punctuation. A friend’s 12-year-old daughter once said that in her view, a single exclamation point is fine, as is three, but never two. My friend asked her where this rule came from and the girl said, “Nowhere. It’s just something you learn.”

by Ben Yagoda, NY Times |  Read more:
Illustration: Thomas Ng