Wednesday, August 13, 2014
The Great American Sell-Off
[ed. Repost. The Great American Sell-Off hasn't materialized just quite yet. Boomers still seem wedded to their single-family homes (and all their accumulated stuff). But that might change soon. Either that, or they'll just stay put until they can't stay anymore, then leave the cleanup and estate details to the kids. ]
It's 8:55 a.m. on a crisp Thursday morning in the exclusive New Jersey suburb of Bernards Township, and at 34 Emily Rd., more than 60 people are lined up impatiently outside the front door. Inside, owners Mark and Mary Tuller, who were up most of the night and feel like "zombies," are girding themselves for the onslaught: a three-day crush of strangers pouring into their home, pawing through their family's stuff. Attic to basement, nearly everything is tagged with a price, from the mahogany dining room breakfront ($5,000) to the half-used
Mark, a 62-year-old former general counsel for Verizon Wireless, and Mary, a retired math teacher, say they couldn't be more excited about their imminent move to a smaller, Mediterranean-style place on the California coast. But with moving trucks arriving in exactly one week, they're more than a little anxious about whether this estate sale will be successful in unloading nearly three decades' worth of accumulated belongings—especially prized pieces like their antique, hand-knotted Persian rugs (the one in the living room originally cost $20,000). "We wanted to sell these expensive items in a way that brought closure," says Mark, "and didn't want them to just walk out the door for almost nothing."
Indeed, to help facilitate the sale, they've chosen a company called The Grand Bazaar to run it; unlike some other mom-and-pop businesses they interviewed, it actually takes credit cards. But from the moment the doors open and salegoers storm the 5,000-square-foot home like pirates rushing a ship, virtually no one bothers with plastic. Not the man with the white ponytail happily scoring a $1 jug of deer repellent or the woman in chunky diamonds and fur-tipped pumps snapping up old garden hose nozzles. Some bargainers cart off books or clothes in bulk, but most arrive at the checkout table with small items: Christmas decorations, souvenir Parisian drink coasters, a board game from the downstairs toy closet. In fact, when the doors close on the Tuller family sale (final take: on the plus side of $30,000), there's still quite a bit of furniture left, most of which is destined for donation or—cue Mary's nostalgic sighs—the Dumpster. And those expensive rugs? At least $30,000 worth of fancy floor coverings are headed into storage. "The sale was a huge success if you were in the market for unopened soap," says Mark.
Call it the great American sell-off . For years now Americans have been gathering and collecting at an amazing pace, filling homes that over the past half-century have more than doubled in size, to an average of nearly 2,500 square feet. And even that hasn't been enough to contain our nation's overflow of stuff. These days nearly one in 10 U.S. households maintains at least one self-storage unit, 65 percent more than did so in 1995. Filling these spaces, of course, comes naturally to baby boomers. Born into the giddy postwar climate of conspicuous consumption and weaned on decades of easy credit, they're a generation accustomed to regularly leaving offerings at the altar of retail.
That is, until they hit the empty-nest, time-to-start-downsizing phase—and begin wondering what to do with their mountains of accumulated stuff. With some 8,000 Americans turning 65 every day, on average, and the senior population expected to double by 2050, millions are facing a massive, multifaceted purge that's turning out to be much tougher than they thought it would be. And millions more find themselves in similar quandaries as they deal with the truckloads they've inherited from packrat relatives. Indeed, whether they're leaving an heirloom china set at the local consignment store or packing a stately grandfather clock off to Sotheby's, many are discovering that the resale market is glutted with household goods. And oriental rugs are only the beginning. Got a home full of middle-market, traditional-style furniture to sell? Dealers say that stuff's plunged 50 to 75 percent in value. Elaborate silver tea sets are worth more melted than as decorative objects. And huge heavy items like dining-room breakfronts and banker-style desks are often the toughest to unload. "I once sold a piano for $11," says David Rago, a Lambertville, N.J., auctioneer.
by Missy Sullivan, Market Watch | Read more:
Image: cleverswine
It's 8:55 a.m. on a crisp Thursday morning in the exclusive New Jersey suburb of Bernards Township, and at 34 Emily Rd., more than 60 people are lined up impatiently outside the front door. Inside, owners Mark and Mary Tuller, who were up most of the night and feel like "zombies," are girding themselves for the onslaught: a three-day crush of strangers pouring into their home, pawing through their family's stuff. Attic to basement, nearly everything is tagged with a price, from the mahogany dining room breakfront ($5,000) to the half-used
Mark, a 62-year-old former general counsel for Verizon Wireless, and Mary, a retired math teacher, say they couldn't be more excited about their imminent move to a smaller, Mediterranean-style place on the California coast. But with moving trucks arriving in exactly one week, they're more than a little anxious about whether this estate sale will be successful in unloading nearly three decades' worth of accumulated belongings—especially prized pieces like their antique, hand-knotted Persian rugs (the one in the living room originally cost $20,000). "We wanted to sell these expensive items in a way that brought closure," says Mark, "and didn't want them to just walk out the door for almost nothing."Indeed, to help facilitate the sale, they've chosen a company called The Grand Bazaar to run it; unlike some other mom-and-pop businesses they interviewed, it actually takes credit cards. But from the moment the doors open and salegoers storm the 5,000-square-foot home like pirates rushing a ship, virtually no one bothers with plastic. Not the man with the white ponytail happily scoring a $1 jug of deer repellent or the woman in chunky diamonds and fur-tipped pumps snapping up old garden hose nozzles. Some bargainers cart off books or clothes in bulk, but most arrive at the checkout table with small items: Christmas decorations, souvenir Parisian drink coasters, a board game from the downstairs toy closet. In fact, when the doors close on the Tuller family sale (final take: on the plus side of $30,000), there's still quite a bit of furniture left, most of which is destined for donation or—cue Mary's nostalgic sighs—the Dumpster. And those expensive rugs? At least $30,000 worth of fancy floor coverings are headed into storage. "The sale was a huge success if you were in the market for unopened soap," says Mark.
Call it the great American sell-off . For years now Americans have been gathering and collecting at an amazing pace, filling homes that over the past half-century have more than doubled in size, to an average of nearly 2,500 square feet. And even that hasn't been enough to contain our nation's overflow of stuff. These days nearly one in 10 U.S. households maintains at least one self-storage unit, 65 percent more than did so in 1995. Filling these spaces, of course, comes naturally to baby boomers. Born into the giddy postwar climate of conspicuous consumption and weaned on decades of easy credit, they're a generation accustomed to regularly leaving offerings at the altar of retail.
That is, until they hit the empty-nest, time-to-start-downsizing phase—and begin wondering what to do with their mountains of accumulated stuff. With some 8,000 Americans turning 65 every day, on average, and the senior population expected to double by 2050, millions are facing a massive, multifaceted purge that's turning out to be much tougher than they thought it would be. And millions more find themselves in similar quandaries as they deal with the truckloads they've inherited from packrat relatives. Indeed, whether they're leaving an heirloom china set at the local consignment store or packing a stately grandfather clock off to Sotheby's, many are discovering that the resale market is glutted with household goods. And oriental rugs are only the beginning. Got a home full of middle-market, traditional-style furniture to sell? Dealers say that stuff's plunged 50 to 75 percent in value. Elaborate silver tea sets are worth more melted than as decorative objects. And huge heavy items like dining-room breakfronts and banker-style desks are often the toughest to unload. "I once sold a piano for $11," says David Rago, a Lambertville, N.J., auctioneer.
by Missy Sullivan, Market Watch | Read more:
Image: cleverswine
I Liked Everything I Saw on Facebook for Two Days. Here’s What It Did to Me
Warhol: Someone said that Brecht wanted everybody to think alike. I want everybody to think alike. But Brecht wanted to do it through Communism, in a way. Russia is doing it under government. It’s happening here all by itself without being under a strict government; so if it’s working without trying, why can’t it work without being Communist? Everybody looks alike and acts alike, and we’re getting more and more that way.
I think everybody should be a machine. I think everybody should like everybody.
Art News: Is that what Pop Art is all about?
Warhol: Yes. It’s liking things.
Art News: And liking things is like being a machine?
Warhol: Yes, because you do the same thing every time. You do it over and over again.
The like and the favorite are the new metrics of success—very literally. Not only are they ego-feeders for the stuff we put online as individuals, but advertisers track their campaigns on Facebook by how often they are liked. A recent New York Timesstory on a krill oil ad campaign lays bare how much the like matters to advertisers. Liking is an economic act.
I like everything. Or at least I did, for 48 hours. Literally everything Facebook sent my way, I liked—even if I hated it. I decided to embark on a campaign of conscious liking, to see how it would affect what Facebook showed me. I know this sounds like a stunt (and it was) but it was also genuinely just an open-ended experiment. I wasn’t sure how long I’d keep it up (48 hours was all I could stand) or what I’d learn (possibly nothing.)
See, Facebook uses algorithms to decide what shows up in your feed. It isn’t just a parade of sequential updates from your friends and the things you’ve expressed an interest in. In 2014 the News Feed is a highly-curated presentation, delivered to you by a complicated formula based on the actions you take on the site, and across the web. I wanted to see how my Facebook experience would change if I constantly rewarded the robots making these decisions for me, if I continually said, “good job, robot, I like this.” I also decided I’d only do this on Facebook itself—trying to hit every Like button I came across on the open web would just be too daunting. But even when I kept the experiment to the site itself, the results were dramatic.
I like everything. Or at least I did, for 48 hours. Literally everything Facebook sent my way, I liked—even if I hated it. I decided to embark on a campaign of conscious liking, to see how it would affect what Facebook showed me. I know this sounds like a stunt (and it was) but it was also genuinely just an open-ended experiment. I wasn’t sure how long I’d keep it up (48 hours was all I could stand) or what I’d learn (possibly nothing.)
See, Facebook uses algorithms to decide what shows up in your feed. It isn’t just a parade of sequential updates from your friends and the things you’ve expressed an interest in. In 2014 the News Feed is a highly-curated presentation, delivered to you by a complicated formula based on the actions you take on the site, and across the web. I wanted to see how my Facebook experience would change if I constantly rewarded the robots making these decisions for me, if I continually said, “good job, robot, I like this.” I also decided I’d only do this on Facebook itself—trying to hit every Like button I came across on the open web would just be too daunting. But even when I kept the experiment to the site itself, the results were dramatic.
by Mat Honan, Wired | Read more:
Image: Getty
The Salmon Cannon
[ed. Interesting alternative to traditional fish passes. One thing I'd wonder about is the loss of body 'slime', the coating that protects salmon from bacterial infection and premature tissue decomposition. Even careful handling can sometimes impact this natural defense mechanism.]
Whooshh Innovations ("Whoosh" was already taken) first designed its tubes to transport fruit, but as Washington state debated what do about hydroelectric dams and the salmon whose migrations they blocked, the company saw its technology might have another purpose. If Whooshh tubes could send apples flying over long distances without damaging them, maybe, an employee thought, they could suck fish up and over the dams blocking the Columbia river. (...)
Washington's Columbia river is home to several enormous hydroelectric dams that prevent salmon from migrating to the ocean and back. Some smaller dams have fish ladders — basically slanted mazes that salmon can flop their way up, dodging the dam's turbines. But migration currently stops at the 236-foot-tall Chief Joseph dam, and behind that is Grand Coulee, at 550 feet. Ladders for these dams would be be long and prohibitively difficult for salmon to traverse.
Wildlife departments and public utilities already do strange things to get salmon past manmade barriers, putting them on trucks, loading them onto barges, and in a few cases, lifting them by helicopter. The tubes, Deligan says, could be a less labor-intensive and more effective method, plus it would be less traumatizing to the fish than getting caught and driven around on a truck.
by Josh Dzieza, The Verge | Read more:
Video: Whooshh via YouTube
Chilled Avocado Soup
Chilled Avocado Soup
serves 4
olive oil
1 small onion
2 cloves garlic
1/2 inch fresh ginger, minced
a pinch of dried chilli
2 lime, juice
10 mint leaves
3 medium size avocados
1 cup water
salt & pepper
Mint olive oil:
Stomp 15-20 mint leaves in a mortar, add 3 tbsp olive oil. Let it sit for a while before dripping it over the soup.
Add olive oil to a pan on medium heat. Sauté onion, garlic, ginger and chilli until soft.
Place in a blender together with the rest of the ingredients. Pulse it and taste, add more salt and water if needed.
Top with a couple of drips of the Mint olive oil. Enjoy!
You’re 16. You’re a Pedophile. You Don’t Want to Hurt Anyone. What Do You Do Now?
We have a few go-to archetypes when it comes to pedophilia: There is the playground lurker, the chat-room predator, and the monstrous (often religious) authority figure. These men are usually middle-aged, unrepentant serial abusers who are caught only after remaining undetected for years. But what about the preceding decades? When do these urges first begin to manifest?
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders defines a pedophile as an individual who “over a period of at least six months” has “recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children.” This person also has to have “acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty,” and be “at least age 16 years and at least five years older than the child or children” involved.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that most pedophiles first notice an attraction toward children when they themselves are between 11 and 16, mirroring that of any other sexual awakening. It can be a confusing time for any of us, but imagine realizing that you’re attracted to little kids. How do these young men and women negotiate that with no viable role models or support network? There is no It Gets Better for pedophiles. Are they all fated to end up as child molesters? Or is it possible for them to live a life without hurting children at all?
I spoke with experts and asked around online. I came across a site for self-described pedophiles who acknowledged their attraction and wanted help dealing with it. But the men I met were in their 50s and 60s, and I’d hoped to speak with someone younger, someone still coming to terms with what he was learning about himself. I asked them if they knew anyone like that, and a few weeks later I received an email.
“My name is Adam,” it read. “I’m 18 and non-exclusively attracted to boys and girls of all ages (particularly very young ones). I am the leader of a support group for non-offending pedophiles around my age… I would be very happy to talk with you.”
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders defines a pedophile as an individual who “over a period of at least six months” has “recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children.” This person also has to have “acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty,” and be “at least age 16 years and at least five years older than the child or children” involved.Anecdotal evidence suggests that most pedophiles first notice an attraction toward children when they themselves are between 11 and 16, mirroring that of any other sexual awakening. It can be a confusing time for any of us, but imagine realizing that you’re attracted to little kids. How do these young men and women negotiate that with no viable role models or support network? There is no It Gets Better for pedophiles. Are they all fated to end up as child molesters? Or is it possible for them to live a life without hurting children at all?
I spoke with experts and asked around online. I came across a site for self-described pedophiles who acknowledged their attraction and wanted help dealing with it. But the men I met were in their 50s and 60s, and I’d hoped to speak with someone younger, someone still coming to terms with what he was learning about himself. I asked them if they knew anyone like that, and a few weeks later I received an email.
“My name is Adam,” it read. “I’m 18 and non-exclusively attracted to boys and girls of all ages (particularly very young ones). I am the leader of a support group for non-offending pedophiles around my age… I would be very happy to talk with you.”
by Luke Malone, Medium | Read more:
Image: Simon Prades
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
On Betrayal
Oprah once told a story on her show about a person who had hurt her deeply, someone she’d been holding a grudge against for a long time. One day she saw them on the street laughing, and she said to herself, “You mean that person is laughing while I’m sitting here still feeling miserable?!” And in that moment she realized waiting for someone who doesn’t care about you enough to take responsibility for hurting you is the most useless battle you could ever try to win.
Being betrayed by someone is the worst, most excruciatingly devastating thing a human being can go through. It is a sin against relationships and an affront to trust. And we’re not talking about someone dating someone you used to date, or eating the last piece of pizza before you had a chance to claim it. We’re talking about conspiring, cheating, compulsive lying, layoffs, divorce, the real big things that destroy people.
I have experience in being seriously betrayed by someone I loved very much, someone with whom I had a long-term relationship, someone I believe had my best interest in mind. That’s always what we just expect in any kind of relationship we maintain, isn’t it? That the other person holds up their end of the bargain: We’re in this together, and I’m not going to screw you.
My friends turn to me when they face their own types of betrayal because I. Got. Screwed. There is no other way to say it: This person who I loved screwed me big time. His actions towards me spun my world out of orbit and had very lasting effects that I struggle with to this day. (...)
So when people come to me and want advice for dealing with that kind of hurt someone intentionally caused them, all those feelings are fresh again, stirred up like a very ugly dust storm in my still-mending heart. I don’t just know what they’re going through, I feel it, and it really, really sucks. I still wonder if I’ll ever get an apology. If he’ll ever get that what he did to me was inhumane and borderline sociopathic. Does he remember? Does he care?
I’m going to be honest with you: Some people do not care. Some people hurt others in callus ways and don’t look back. Some people are emotionally vacant or detached, and that’s how they behave. For a long time after the person I knew betrayed me, I would watch how he interacted with others at work or on social media, and I would just have this pain realizing that he didn’t even give me a second thought. He laughed at jokes and talked about movies he saw on the weekend. He built a house and went on vacation. His life continued uninterrupted while I had to heal from a serious, life-altering pain. I was forever changed; he was unmoved.
Some people, unfortunately, can get away with treating people terribly. They just can. We’re not supposed to think like that, we’re supposed to think that karma exists and every action you take towards another person will come back to you. But some people really will just hurt others and move on, which is sometimes even more hurtful than the betrayal in the first place.
They can do this because they have their own hurts, deep hurts that have woven scars all over their hearts and minds. Maybe someone treated them terribly in the past, at a formable age, and they’ve learned since then that it’s ok if you do likewise to others. Maybe they are so shut down from emotional commitments to others that hurting people with their actions doesn’t register anymore. Maybe they’re very aware that what they are doing is wrong, and they do it anyway because they feel their needs are more important. Whatever the reason, something in their past numbed them from the result of their actions, or is telling them, “It’s ok to do this, even if it hurts someone.” Ask forgiveness, not permission? Maybe they think that adage applies to people’s hearts, too.
Being betrayed by someone is the worst, most excruciatingly devastating thing a human being can go through. It is a sin against relationships and an affront to trust. And we’re not talking about someone dating someone you used to date, or eating the last piece of pizza before you had a chance to claim it. We’re talking about conspiring, cheating, compulsive lying, layoffs, divorce, the real big things that destroy people.I have experience in being seriously betrayed by someone I loved very much, someone with whom I had a long-term relationship, someone I believe had my best interest in mind. That’s always what we just expect in any kind of relationship we maintain, isn’t it? That the other person holds up their end of the bargain: We’re in this together, and I’m not going to screw you.
My friends turn to me when they face their own types of betrayal because I. Got. Screwed. There is no other way to say it: This person who I loved screwed me big time. His actions towards me spun my world out of orbit and had very lasting effects that I struggle with to this day. (...)
So when people come to me and want advice for dealing with that kind of hurt someone intentionally caused them, all those feelings are fresh again, stirred up like a very ugly dust storm in my still-mending heart. I don’t just know what they’re going through, I feel it, and it really, really sucks. I still wonder if I’ll ever get an apology. If he’ll ever get that what he did to me was inhumane and borderline sociopathic. Does he remember? Does he care?
I’m going to be honest with you: Some people do not care. Some people hurt others in callus ways and don’t look back. Some people are emotionally vacant or detached, and that’s how they behave. For a long time after the person I knew betrayed me, I would watch how he interacted with others at work or on social media, and I would just have this pain realizing that he didn’t even give me a second thought. He laughed at jokes and talked about movies he saw on the weekend. He built a house and went on vacation. His life continued uninterrupted while I had to heal from a serious, life-altering pain. I was forever changed; he was unmoved.
Some people, unfortunately, can get away with treating people terribly. They just can. We’re not supposed to think like that, we’re supposed to think that karma exists and every action you take towards another person will come back to you. But some people really will just hurt others and move on, which is sometimes even more hurtful than the betrayal in the first place.
They can do this because they have their own hurts, deep hurts that have woven scars all over their hearts and minds. Maybe someone treated them terribly in the past, at a formable age, and they’ve learned since then that it’s ok if you do likewise to others. Maybe they are so shut down from emotional commitments to others that hurting people with their actions doesn’t register anymore. Maybe they’re very aware that what they are doing is wrong, and they do it anyway because they feel their needs are more important. Whatever the reason, something in their past numbed them from the result of their actions, or is telling them, “It’s ok to do this, even if it hurts someone.” Ask forgiveness, not permission? Maybe they think that adage applies to people’s hearts, too.
by Sarah Hatter, A Small Voyage | Read more:
Image: Alyssa L. Miller via:
The God Effect
When I was 12, on family vacation in New Mexico, I watched a group of elaborately-costumed Navajo men belt out one intimidating song after the next. They executed a set of beautifully coordinated dance turns to honour the four cardinal directions, each one symbolising sacred gifts from the gods. Yet the tourist-packed audience lost interest and my family, too, prepared to leave. Then, all of a sudden, the dancers were surprised by a haunting, muscled old man adorned with strange pendants, animal skulls, and scars etching patterns into his body and face.
Because the dancers were obviously terrified of this man I, too, became afraid and wanted to run, but we all stood rooted to the spot as he walked silently and majestically into the desert night. Afterwards, the lead dancer apologised profusely for the tribe’s shaman, or medicine man: he was holy but a bit eccentric. My 12-year-old self wondered how one might become like this extraordinary individual, so singular, respected and brave he could take the desert night alone.
That question has fuelled much of my neuroscience through the years. As I studied the brain, I found that the right arrangement of neural circuitry and chemistry could generate astonishingly creative and holy persons on the one hand, or profoundly delusional, even violent, fanatics on the other. To intensify the ‘god effect’ in people already attracted to religious ideas, my studies revealed, all we had to do was boost the activity of the neurotransmitter, dopamine, crucial for balanced emotion and thought, on the right side of the brain. But should dopamine spike too high, murderous impulses like terrorism and jihad could rear up instead. (...)
The medical literature abounds with descriptions of creative bursts following infusion of dopamine-enhancing drugs such as l-dopa (levodopa), used to treat Parkinson's Disease (PD). Bipolar illness, which sends sufferers into prolonged bouts of dopamine-fuelled mania followed by devastating spells of depressive illness, can sometimes produce work of amazing virtuosity during the manic phase. Often these individuals refuse to take anti-dopamine drugs that can prevent the manic episodes precisely because they value the creative activity of which they are capable during these altered states.
Hallucinogenic drugs such as Psilocybin and LSD, which indirectly stimulate dopamine activity in the brain’s frontal lobes, can produce religious experience even in the avowedly non-religious. These hallucinogens produce vivid imagery, sometimes along with near psychotic breaks or intense spiritual experience, all tied to stimulation of dopamine receptors on neurons in the limbic system, the seat of emotion located in the midbrain, and in the prefrontal cortex, the upper brain that is the centre of complex thought.
Given all these fascinating correlations, sometime after the attack on the twin towers in New York City, I began to hypothesise that dopamine might provide a simple explanation for the paradoxical god effect. When dopamine in the limbic and prefrontal regions of the brain was high, but not too high, it would produce the ability to entertain unusual ideas and associations, leading to heightened creativity, inspired leadership and profound religious experience. When dopamine was too high, however, it would produce mental illness in genetically vulnerable individuals. In those who had been religious before, fanaticism could be the result. (...)
The primary pathology associated with PD is a loss of dopamine activity, hypothesised for years to drive ‘hedonic reward’ or pleasure – that sense of well-being we all feel when we indulge in an experience like good food or sex. Whenever dopamine release occurred, proponents held, we would get a small hit of pleasure. That story made sense because many drugs of abuse, such as cocaine or amphetamine, stimulate dopamine activity in the midbrain.
But recent research had revealed something more complex. A Cambridge University neuroscientist named Wolfram Schultz had shown that dopamine was not a simple pleasure molecule, delivering a simple reward. Instead, it alerted us only to unexpected rewards, spiking when the prize delivered far exceeded the expected result.
Because the dancers were obviously terrified of this man I, too, became afraid and wanted to run, but we all stood rooted to the spot as he walked silently and majestically into the desert night. Afterwards, the lead dancer apologised profusely for the tribe’s shaman, or medicine man: he was holy but a bit eccentric. My 12-year-old self wondered how one might become like this extraordinary individual, so singular, respected and brave he could take the desert night alone.That question has fuelled much of my neuroscience through the years. As I studied the brain, I found that the right arrangement of neural circuitry and chemistry could generate astonishingly creative and holy persons on the one hand, or profoundly delusional, even violent, fanatics on the other. To intensify the ‘god effect’ in people already attracted to religious ideas, my studies revealed, all we had to do was boost the activity of the neurotransmitter, dopamine, crucial for balanced emotion and thought, on the right side of the brain. But should dopamine spike too high, murderous impulses like terrorism and jihad could rear up instead. (...)
The medical literature abounds with descriptions of creative bursts following infusion of dopamine-enhancing drugs such as l-dopa (levodopa), used to treat Parkinson's Disease (PD). Bipolar illness, which sends sufferers into prolonged bouts of dopamine-fuelled mania followed by devastating spells of depressive illness, can sometimes produce work of amazing virtuosity during the manic phase. Often these individuals refuse to take anti-dopamine drugs that can prevent the manic episodes precisely because they value the creative activity of which they are capable during these altered states.
Hallucinogenic drugs such as Psilocybin and LSD, which indirectly stimulate dopamine activity in the brain’s frontal lobes, can produce religious experience even in the avowedly non-religious. These hallucinogens produce vivid imagery, sometimes along with near psychotic breaks or intense spiritual experience, all tied to stimulation of dopamine receptors on neurons in the limbic system, the seat of emotion located in the midbrain, and in the prefrontal cortex, the upper brain that is the centre of complex thought.
Given all these fascinating correlations, sometime after the attack on the twin towers in New York City, I began to hypothesise that dopamine might provide a simple explanation for the paradoxical god effect. When dopamine in the limbic and prefrontal regions of the brain was high, but not too high, it would produce the ability to entertain unusual ideas and associations, leading to heightened creativity, inspired leadership and profound religious experience. When dopamine was too high, however, it would produce mental illness in genetically vulnerable individuals. In those who had been religious before, fanaticism could be the result. (...)
The primary pathology associated with PD is a loss of dopamine activity, hypothesised for years to drive ‘hedonic reward’ or pleasure – that sense of well-being we all feel when we indulge in an experience like good food or sex. Whenever dopamine release occurred, proponents held, we would get a small hit of pleasure. That story made sense because many drugs of abuse, such as cocaine or amphetamine, stimulate dopamine activity in the midbrain.
But recent research had revealed something more complex. A Cambridge University neuroscientist named Wolfram Schultz had shown that dopamine was not a simple pleasure molecule, delivering a simple reward. Instead, it alerted us only to unexpected rewards, spiking when the prize delivered far exceeded the expected result.
Viv
When Apple announced the iPhone 4S on October 4, 2011, the headlines were not about its speedy A5 chip or improved camera. Instead they focused on an unusual new feature: an intelligent assistant, dubbed Siri. At first Siri, endowed with a female voice, seemed almost human in the way she understood what you said to her and responded, an advance in artificial intelligence that seemed to place us on a fast track to the Singularity. She was brilliant at fulfilling certain requests, like “Can you set the alarm for 6:30?” or “Call Diane’s mobile phone.” And she had a personality: If you asked her if there was a God, she would demur with deft wisdom. “My policy is the separation of spirit and silicon,” she’d say.
Over the next few months, however, Siri’s limitations became apparent. Ask her to book a plane trip and she would point to travel websites—but she wouldn’t give flight options, let alone secure you a seat. Ask her to buy a copy of Lee Child’s new book and she would draw a blank, despite the fact that Apple sells it. Though Apple has since extended Siri’s powers—to make an OpenTable restaurant reservation, for example—she still can’t do something as simple as booking a table on the next available night in your schedule. She knows how to check your calendar and she knows how to use OpenTable. But putting those things together is, at the moment, beyond her.
Now a small team of engineers at a stealth startup called Viv Labs claims to be on the verge of realizing an advanced form of AI that removes those limitations. Whereas Siri can only perform tasks that Apple engineers explicitly implement, this new program, they say, will be able to teach itself, giving it almost limitless capabilities. In time, they assert, their creation will be able to use your personal preferences and a near-infinite web of connections to answer almost any query and perform almost any function.
“Siri is chapter one of a much longer, bigger story,” says Dag Kittlaus, one of Viv’s cofounders. He should know. Before working on Viv, he helped create Siri. So did his fellow cofounders, Adam Cheyer and Chris Brigham. (...)
Their goal is to build a new generation of AI that can process massive troves of data to predict and fulfill our desires.
Viv strives to be the first consumer-friendly assistant that truly achieves that promise. It wants to be not only blindingly smart and infinitely flexible but omnipresent. Viv’s creators hope that some day soon it will be embedded in a plethora of Internet-connected everyday objects. Viv founders say you’ll access its artificial intelligence as a utility, the way you draw on electricity. Simply by speaking, you will connect to what they are calling “a global brain.” And that brain can help power a million different apps and devices.
“I’m extremely proud of Siri and the impact it’s had on the world, but in many ways it could have been more,” Cheyer says. “Now I want to do something bigger than mobile, bigger than consumer, bigger than desktop or enterprise. I want to do something that could fundamentally change the way software is built.”
Over the next few months, however, Siri’s limitations became apparent. Ask her to book a plane trip and she would point to travel websites—but she wouldn’t give flight options, let alone secure you a seat. Ask her to buy a copy of Lee Child’s new book and she would draw a blank, despite the fact that Apple sells it. Though Apple has since extended Siri’s powers—to make an OpenTable restaurant reservation, for example—she still can’t do something as simple as booking a table on the next available night in your schedule. She knows how to check your calendar and she knows how to use OpenTable. But putting those things together is, at the moment, beyond her.Now a small team of engineers at a stealth startup called Viv Labs claims to be on the verge of realizing an advanced form of AI that removes those limitations. Whereas Siri can only perform tasks that Apple engineers explicitly implement, this new program, they say, will be able to teach itself, giving it almost limitless capabilities. In time, they assert, their creation will be able to use your personal preferences and a near-infinite web of connections to answer almost any query and perform almost any function.
“Siri is chapter one of a much longer, bigger story,” says Dag Kittlaus, one of Viv’s cofounders. He should know. Before working on Viv, he helped create Siri. So did his fellow cofounders, Adam Cheyer and Chris Brigham. (...)
Their goal is to build a new generation of AI that can process massive troves of data to predict and fulfill our desires.
Viv strives to be the first consumer-friendly assistant that truly achieves that promise. It wants to be not only blindingly smart and infinitely flexible but omnipresent. Viv’s creators hope that some day soon it will be embedded in a plethora of Internet-connected everyday objects. Viv founders say you’ll access its artificial intelligence as a utility, the way you draw on electricity. Simply by speaking, you will connect to what they are calling “a global brain.” And that brain can help power a million different apps and devices.
“I’m extremely proud of Siri and the impact it’s had on the world, but in many ways it could have been more,” Cheyer says. “Now I want to do something bigger than mobile, bigger than consumer, bigger than desktop or enterprise. I want to do something that could fundamentally change the way software is built.”
by Steven Levy, Wired | Read more:
Image: Ariel Zambelich
Monday, August 11, 2014
Colgate Total Ingredient Linked to Hormones, Cancer Spotlights FDA Process
The chemical triclosan has been linked to cancer-cell growth and disrupted development in animals. Regulators are reviewing whether it’s safe to put in soap, cutting boards and toys. Consumer companies are phasing it out. Minnesota voted in May to ban it in many products.
At the same time, millions of Americans are putting it in their mouths every day, by way of a top-selling toothpaste that uses the antibacterial chemical to head off gum disease -- Colgate-Palmolive Co.’s Total.
Total is safe, Colgate says, citing the rigorous Food and Drug Administration process that led to the toothpaste’s 1997 approval as an over-the-counter drug. A closer look at that application process, however, reveals that some of the scientific findings Colgate put forward to establish triclosan’s safety in toothpaste weren’t black and white -- and weren’t, until this year, available to the public.
At the same time, millions of Americans are putting it in their mouths every day, by way of a top-selling toothpaste that uses the antibacterial chemical to head off gum disease -- Colgate-Palmolive Co.’s Total.Total is safe, Colgate says, citing the rigorous Food and Drug Administration process that led to the toothpaste’s 1997 approval as an over-the-counter drug. A closer look at that application process, however, reveals that some of the scientific findings Colgate put forward to establish triclosan’s safety in toothpaste weren’t black and white -- and weren’t, until this year, available to the public.
Colgate’s Total application included 35 pages summarizing toxicology studies on triclosan, which the FDA withheld from view. The agency released the pages earlier this year in response to a lawsuit over a Freedom of Information Act request. Later, following inquiries from Bloomberg News, the FDA put the pages on its website.
The pages show how even with one of the U.S.’s most stringent regulatory processes -- FDA approval of a new drug -- the government relies on company-backed science to show products are safe and effective. The recently released pages, taken alongside new research on triclosan, raise questions about whether the agency did appropriate due diligence in approving Total 17 years ago, and whether its approval should stand in light of new research, said three scientists who reviewed the pages at Bloomberg News’s request. (...)
Colgate removed triclosan from its Softsoap liquid handsoaps and Palmolive antibacterial dish liquid in 2011, citing changing consumer preferences and superior formulations. It said it has no plans to reformulate Total, which is the only triclosan toothpaste approved for U.S. sale.
The pages show how even with one of the U.S.’s most stringent regulatory processes -- FDA approval of a new drug -- the government relies on company-backed science to show products are safe and effective. The recently released pages, taken alongside new research on triclosan, raise questions about whether the agency did appropriate due diligence in approving Total 17 years ago, and whether its approval should stand in light of new research, said three scientists who reviewed the pages at Bloomberg News’s request. (...)
Colgate removed triclosan from its Softsoap liquid handsoaps and Palmolive antibacterial dish liquid in 2011, citing changing consumer preferences and superior formulations. It said it has no plans to reformulate Total, which is the only triclosan toothpaste approved for U.S. sale.
by Tiffany Kary, Bloomberg | Read more:
Image: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg
Why Scientists Are Trying To Make Fake Shark Skin
From velcro to bullet trains, nature has inspired some of the most impressive feats of human innovation. This summer a crab-like, underwater robot, developed by Korean scientists, will search for ancient artifacts in the Yellow Sea. Drones are mimicking the flight movements of birds and bees. And, our biomimetic future looks bright.
A handful of researchers are now hot on the heels of a new creation: synthetic skin.
Marine animals use their skin to help navigate and survive their environment. Dolphins living in cold waters actually have thick skin to insulate their bodies and stay warm. Octopuses’ sucker-lined skin not only contains millions of nerves that help them sense and grasp prey, but it’s also embedded with unique color-changing cells that can render them invisible to predators. The skin bumps that line humpback whales' pectoral fins increase the animal's buoyancy. So, scientists see potential.
Using 3D printing and computer modeling technology, researchers are developing artificial-but-realistic marine animal skin for use in everything from anti-microbial door handles to underwater robots. George Lauder, an ichthyologist at Harvard University in Boston, and his team have developed the first true artificial shark skin with help from a top-end 3D printer.
Previous attempts involved rubber molds and fabric, and researchers struggled to manufacture material with both soft and hard components. Shark skin-inspired swimsuits made a splash at the 2008 Olympics, but Lauder’s research team actually found that the material in suits like Speedo’s Fastskin II doesn’t truly mimic shark skin or reduce drag, because it lacks denticles.
Sharks can swim at high speeds through ocean waters thanks to tiny, tooth-like denticles that cover their silky skin. “That turns out to be a very critical feature of performance of shark skin during swimming,” says Lauder. One would think smoother skin is better for speed. But, he adds, “It’s actually good to be rough, to have a rough surface of a certain kind when you want to move through a fluid environment, water or air, as efficiently as possible.”
A handful of researchers are now hot on the heels of a new creation: synthetic skin.Marine animals use their skin to help navigate and survive their environment. Dolphins living in cold waters actually have thick skin to insulate their bodies and stay warm. Octopuses’ sucker-lined skin not only contains millions of nerves that help them sense and grasp prey, but it’s also embedded with unique color-changing cells that can render them invisible to predators. The skin bumps that line humpback whales' pectoral fins increase the animal's buoyancy. So, scientists see potential.
Using 3D printing and computer modeling technology, researchers are developing artificial-but-realistic marine animal skin for use in everything from anti-microbial door handles to underwater robots. George Lauder, an ichthyologist at Harvard University in Boston, and his team have developed the first true artificial shark skin with help from a top-end 3D printer.
Previous attempts involved rubber molds and fabric, and researchers struggled to manufacture material with both soft and hard components. Shark skin-inspired swimsuits made a splash at the 2008 Olympics, but Lauder’s research team actually found that the material in suits like Speedo’s Fastskin II doesn’t truly mimic shark skin or reduce drag, because it lacks denticles.
Sharks can swim at high speeds through ocean waters thanks to tiny, tooth-like denticles that cover their silky skin. “That turns out to be a very critical feature of performance of shark skin during swimming,” says Lauder. One would think smoother skin is better for speed. But, he adds, “It’s actually good to be rough, to have a rough surface of a certain kind when you want to move through a fluid environment, water or air, as efficiently as possible.”
by Helen Thompson, Smithsonian | Read more:
Image: Dennis Kunkel Microscopy, Inc./Visuals Unlimited/Corbis
50 Million New Reasons BuzzFeed Wants to Take Its Content Far Beyond Lists
Here are three completely crazy insights about BuzzFeed, the viral content start-up:
1. BuzzFeed is a web traffic sensation that draws 150 million average monthly viewers.
2. Numbered lists, like this one, are what the site is most famous for and drive much of its audience.
3. BuzzFeed wants to be known for much, much more.
To help make that happen, BuzzFeed just closed a new $50 million investment from Andreessen Horowitz, a prominent venture capital firm in Silicon Valley. The investment values the company at about $850 million, according to a person with knowledge of the deal.
Now the question is whether BuzzFeed can maintain the agility and skills of a tech start-up while building the breadth of a large media company.
“As we grow, how can we maintain a culture that can still be entrepreneurial?” said Jonah Peretti, the company’s co-founder and chief executive. “What if a Hollywood studio or a news organization was run like a start-up?”
That is exactly what Mr. Peretti is going to try. On Monday, BuzzFeed will announce that its new cash infusion will be used to make several major changes, including introducing new content sections, creating an in-house incubator for new technology and potential acquisitions, and putting far more resources toward BuzzFeed Motion Pictures, its Los Angeles-based video arm.
The goal: Try a bunch of new features, and fast.
BuzzFeed, which is based in New York, started in 2006 as a kind of laboratory for viral content — the kinds of highly shareable lists, videos and memes that pepper social media sites. But in recent years, the company has added more traditional content, building a track record for delivering breaking news and deeply reported articles, and it has tried to marry its two halves in one site.
But what has really set BuzzFeed apart, Mr. Peretti said, is its grasp of technology. The company, which now has 550 employees, has been especially successful at distributing its lists and content through mobile devices and through social sites like Facebook and Twitter.
The photo-sharing site Pinterest, in particular, now drives more traffic to BuzzFeed’s Life section than Twitter does, Mr. Peretti said. Social media accounts for 75 percent of BuzzFeed’s referral traffic, according to the company.
Chris Dixon, a general partner at Andreessen Horowitz, who will join BuzzFeed’s board, said: “We think of BuzzFeed as more of a technology company. They embrace Internet culture. Everything is first optimized for mobile and social channels.”
1. BuzzFeed is a web traffic sensation that draws 150 million average monthly viewers.
2. Numbered lists, like this one, are what the site is most famous for and drive much of its audience.
3. BuzzFeed wants to be known for much, much more.
To help make that happen, BuzzFeed just closed a new $50 million investment from Andreessen Horowitz, a prominent venture capital firm in Silicon Valley. The investment values the company at about $850 million, according to a person with knowledge of the deal.Now the question is whether BuzzFeed can maintain the agility and skills of a tech start-up while building the breadth of a large media company.
“As we grow, how can we maintain a culture that can still be entrepreneurial?” said Jonah Peretti, the company’s co-founder and chief executive. “What if a Hollywood studio or a news organization was run like a start-up?”
That is exactly what Mr. Peretti is going to try. On Monday, BuzzFeed will announce that its new cash infusion will be used to make several major changes, including introducing new content sections, creating an in-house incubator for new technology and potential acquisitions, and putting far more resources toward BuzzFeed Motion Pictures, its Los Angeles-based video arm.
The goal: Try a bunch of new features, and fast.
BuzzFeed, which is based in New York, started in 2006 as a kind of laboratory for viral content — the kinds of highly shareable lists, videos and memes that pepper social media sites. But in recent years, the company has added more traditional content, building a track record for delivering breaking news and deeply reported articles, and it has tried to marry its two halves in one site.
But what has really set BuzzFeed apart, Mr. Peretti said, is its grasp of technology. The company, which now has 550 employees, has been especially successful at distributing its lists and content through mobile devices and through social sites like Facebook and Twitter.
The photo-sharing site Pinterest, in particular, now drives more traffic to BuzzFeed’s Life section than Twitter does, Mr. Peretti said. Social media accounts for 75 percent of BuzzFeed’s referral traffic, according to the company.
Chris Dixon, a general partner at Andreessen Horowitz, who will join BuzzFeed’s board, said: “We think of BuzzFeed as more of a technology company. They embrace Internet culture. Everything is first optimized for mobile and social channels.”
by Mike Isaac, NY Times | Read more:
Image: Chang W. Lee/The New York Times
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)