Unless otherwise attributed, all content (images and text) is Copyright © 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013... 2017 by Folded Sky Productions Ltd.

Sunday, 11 December 2011

white... hope

From: FightingBlog

"This fantasy ran wild four years ago. Obama is 'probably the smartest guy ever to become president,' the presidential historian Michael Beschloss announced shortly after the November election. The then-candidate’s Philadelphia address on race and Jeremiah Wright was 'as great a speech as ever given by a presidential candidate,' a group of progressive luminaries declared in The Nation. Obama’s Dreams From My Father is quite possibly 'the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician,' Time Magazine’s Joe Klein declared. 'He is not the Word made flesh,' Ezra Klein wrote of Obama’s rhetoric in The American Prospect, 'but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair.'
     It’s easy to see why this kind of myth-making would infuriate Obama’s opponents. And so ever since the 2008 election, the right has embraced a sweeping counternarrative, in which the president’s eloquence is a myth and his brilliance a pure invention. Take away his campaign razzle-dazzle and his media cheering section, this argument goes, and what remains is a droning pedant, out of his depth and tongue-tied without a teleprompter.
     This is where [Newt] Gingrich comes in. Just as [John] Kerry’s candidacy represented an attempt to effectively out-patriot George W. Bush ('You have a war president? We have a war hero!'), the former speaker has skillfully played to the Republican desire for a candidate who can finally outsmart and out-orate Obama."
— Ross Douthat, The New York Times
Read more...

serfing the net

From: Reanimation Library

"The cluster of ideas, meanings, and implications associated with Web 2.0 has been amalgamating for the better part of a decade, steadily consolidating to the point where few would deny its cultural significance. The development of more sophisticated search engines and the promulgation of social media have combined to turn casual computer users into simultaneous producer-consumers with an ever-intensifying incentive to weave digital interfaces into all facets of their everyday life. The ubiquity of broadband access and the onslaught of gadgetry has allowed the internet to take on the characteristics of what autonomist Marxists like Paolo Virno and Toni Negri call the social factory, in which the effort we put into our social lives becomes a kind of covert work that can be co-opted by the tech companies that help us 'share' and 'connect.'
     Those nice-sounding words mask the potentially exploitative aspects of the process. In Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy, Tiziana Terranova argues that 'the internet is about the extraction of value out of continuous, updateable work, and it is extremely labor-intensive.' Nicholas Carr has described Web 2.0 as 'digital sharecropping,' a way of putting 'the means of production into the hands of the masses but withholding from those same masses any ownership over the product of their work.' The internet thereby becomes 'an incredibly efficient mechanism to harvest the economic value of the free labor provided by the very many and concentrate it into the hands of the very few.'
     But if it is so exploitative, why do we bother with all the 'sharing?' It may be because we don’t experience this effort as work but instead as simply being ourselves, which Web 2.0 seeks to make synonymous with digital participation. [...]"
— Rob Horning, The New Inquiry

Read more...

paradise preserved

Photo: Michael Hale

"History (including Hawaiian history) is filled with examples of indigenous peoples being cheated out of their land by unscrupulous outsiders, but this may be a case where the natives pulled one over on the foreigners. When the Sinclair brothers first laid eyes on Niihau, the island was lush and green, seemingly the perfect place to set up a ranch. What Kamehameha apparently did not tell them was that the island was coming off of two years of unusually wet weather. Normally it was semi-arid, almost a desert. Niihau sits in the 'rain shadow' of Kauai and receives just 25 inches of rain a year, compared to more than 450 inches on the wettest parts of Kauai. Droughts on Niihau are so severe that it was common for the Niihauans to abandon their island for years on end until the rains returned. If they didn’t leave, they starved. [...]
     If you’ve ever wondered what the Hawaiian islands looked like when Captain Cook first set eyes on them in 1778, you can get a pretty good idea by sailing around Niihau. The island is almost completely undeveloped: There are no paved roads and no hotels or other commercial buildings. The beaches are pristine. Most of the islanders live in small houses clustered around Puuwai (pronounced POO-ooh-WAH-ee), Niihau’s only village, on the west coast of the island. With the exception of this tiny settlement, most of the island looks as if it is uninhabited by anything other than wildlife, including feral sheep, antelope, and white Polynesian boar that roam the island. [...]
     The Niihauans speak Hawaiian as their first language. Classes in the tiny elementary school are taught in Hawaiian through the third grade, after which English is introduced. There are no private automobiles on the island; the Niihauans get around on bicycles or on horseback. There are no police and no jail on the island, but there isn’t any crime, either. The last serious crime took place in December 1941, during the attack on Pearl Harbor, when a Japanese pilot ditched his plane on Niihau and then terrorized the island for several days before he was killed by one of the Niihauans.
     Guns and alcohol aren’t allowed on Niihau, and while tobacco hasn’t been banned entirely, the Robinsons will not transport it on the barge that periodically ferried supplies over from Kauai. To outsiders, these restrictions may seem harsh, but alcohol, tobacco, and firearms were never a part of Hawaiian culture, so they’re not part of Niihauan culture now. (So how to they hunt the wild animals on the island? The same way they have for generations: with knives and rope.)"— Uncle John's 24-Karat Gold Bathroom Reader, via Neatorama
Read more...

Saturday, 10 December 2011

the apple, the serpent and the tree of knowledge

From: Folded Sky



"Over the last two years, Apple has been engaged in vicious legal battles over smartphone patents, many of which are aimed at squelching (or squeezing money out of) manufacturers of devices running Android. And now, for some reason, it has given valuable patents to a patent troll — which is using them to sue many of the top technology companies in the world.
     Meet Digitude Innovations, a firm based in Virginia that recently filed suit with the International Trade Commission alleging patent infringement by technology companies including RIM, HTC, LG, Motorola, Samsung, Sony, Amazon, and Nokia (note that Apple is not on this list). The ITC is a favorite for companies litigating over mobile phone patent disputes, as it can block the import of products long before a case has actually concluded.
     I spoke with Julie Samuels, Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who focuses on patents, who points out that in some cases certain companies will sell their patents to other parties when they’re under financial stress. But Apple clearly doesn’t fall into that bucket.
     If Apple were deliberately aiding Digitude, Samuels says 'it would be horrifying — the patent troll problem is completely out of control. Apple has every legal right to sue over its patents, but it should be the one to do it'. "— Jason Kincaid, Tech Crunch
Read more...

Wednesday, 7 December 2011

unreliable witness

"I claim that people make errors whenever they are provided with cues that would lead them to make a similar error about the thoughts of a third party. This suggests, I think, that they are using the same mental faculty for both (often now called the ‘mindreading’ faculty), relying upon the same sorts of cues. [...]
     People are completely unaware that they are always interpreting themselves in just the same way that they interpret others, however. Indeed, they think that they are directly introspecting their own thoughts. (I argue in my book, The Opacity of Mind, that there are reasons why the mindreading faculty should have been designed in such a way as to produce this illusion.) As a result, people will smoothly and unhesitatingly confabulate about their thoughts, telling of thoughts that we know they didn’t really have.
     For instance, in one study people were presented with pairs of pictures of female faces, and asked to pick the most attractive one. When they did so, the pictures were laid face down on the table for a moment, before the chosen picture was handed to subjects and they were asked to say why they had chosen it. However, in some trials, through the experimenter’s sleight of hand, the picture that they were then looking at was the one they had rejected, not the one they had chosen. The results were quite remarkable. First of all, hardly anyone noticed! Moreover, they went on to tell why they had chosen that picture, often citing factors that we can be quite sure were no part of the reason for their choice. (For example, saying, ‘I like her ear rings’, when the woman in the chosen picture hadn’t been wearing ear rings.) When people’s answers in the actual-choice and sleight-of-hand conditions were analyzed, the experimenters could discover no differences between the two. People’s reports had the same degree of emotional engagement, specificity, and so on, and were expressed with the same degree of confidence. I take this study, and many others like it, to show that people have no direct access to the factors that determine their liking for things."
— Peter Carruthers interviewed by Richard Marshall, 3 A.M. Magazine
Read more...

"So why do people misunderstand mirrors in this way? [Rebecca] Lawson said there are probably multiple reasons. One participant described her naive belief that whenever you turn your eyes towards a mirror, wherever it is, you will see yourself reflected in it - 'mirrors look back at you,' she said. No doubt this belief was held implicitly by many of the other participants.
    'Almost nobody will have a clear, thought-through and self-consistent theory of optics which they use to guide their predictions,' Lawson said. 'Most people probably use a set of underspecified beliefs and heuristics, some of which are incompatible, leading them to make unsophisticated, noisy and inaccurate predictions. People rarely think explicitly about optics and what determines what they can see in a mirror or a window - or indeed, what they can see directly.' "
Research Digest

Sunday, 4 December 2011

green giant

From: The Whole Half via: Alabaster


"[...] On the outside, EASI is classic New Orleans: red brick, white pillars. But inside it's more like a set from War Games: dot matrix printers, ancient PCs, and nine Hewlett-Packard gas chromatography-mass spectrometer machines attached to large blue tanks of helium and hydrogen. This is where [Ted] Breaux does his lab work, testing water samples for pollution and pesticides. In his downtime, he studies absinthe here.
     Using the GCMS apparatus, he's able to break the liqueur down into its component molecules. 'It's like forensics,' Breaux says, gesturing toward the machines. 'Give me one microliter of absinthe and I know exactly what it's going to taste like.'
     Breaux explains how the testing works. He takes a bottle of the liqueur, inserts a syringe through the cork (absinthe oxidizes like wine once the bottle is open), and extracts a few milliliters. He transfers the sample into a vial, which is lifted by a robotic arm into the gas chromatography tower. There it is separated into its components. Then the mass spectrometer identifies them and measures their relative quantities.
     One of the ingredients is thujone, a compound in wormwood that is toxic if it's ingested, capable of causing violent seizures and kidney failure. Breaux hands me a bottle of pure liquid thujone. 'Take a whiff,' he says with an evil grin. I recoil at the odor - it's like menthol laced with napalm. This is the noxious chemical compound responsible for absinthe's bad reputation. The question that's been debated for years is, Just how much thujone is there in absinthe?
     Absinthe was first distilled in 1792 in Switzerland, where it was marketed as a medicinal elixir, a cure for stomach ailments. High concentrations of chlorophyll gave it a rich olive color. In the 19th century, people began turning to the minty drink less for pains of the stomach than for pains of the soul. Absinthe came to be associated with artists and Moulin Rouge bohemians. Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Van Gogh, and Picasso were devotees. Toulouse-Lautrec carried some in a hollowed-out cane. Oscar Wilde wrote, 'What difference is there between a glass of absinthe and a sunset?' Soon absinthe was the social lubricant of choice for a broad swath of Europeans - artists and otherwise. In 1874, the French sipped 700,000 liters of the stuff; by the turn of the century, consumption had shot up to 36 million liters, driven in part by a phylloxera infestation that had devastated the wine-grape harvest.
     By the early 20th century, absinthe was becoming popular in America. It found a natural reception in New Orleans, where the bon temps were already rolling. Breaux's own great-grandparents were known to enjoy an occasional glass. But the drink was drawing fire for its thujone content. 'It is truly madness in a bottle, and no habitual drinker can claim that he will not become a criminal,' declared one politician. The anti-absinthe fervor climaxed in 1905, when Swiss farmer Jean Lanfray shot his pregnant wife and two daughters after downing two glasses. (Overlooked was what else Lanfray consumed that day: crème de menthe, cognac, seven glasses of wine, coffee with brandy, and another liter of wine.) By the end of World War I, the 'green menace' was made illegal everywhere in western Europe except Spain. No reputable distillery still made it."
— Brian Ashcraft, Wired
Read more...

bad taste

From: American Painter


"Immorality is inevitably tied to social constructions and our value system. Ultimately, it is defined by the idea of morality inherent to our social context. We seldom stop to think about what the intrinsic idea of immorality actually means in the mind. [...]
     Researchers found a consistent left-hemisphere bias for processing different kinds of immoral stimuli. Interesting as the results may be, this is only the tip of the iceberg. The implications of understanding how the brain actually processes immoral stimuli could have a tremendous value for both neurological study and psychology. Opening up multiple possibilities for future research, the study pointed to a consistent pattern of brain response to 'immorality,' as the left-hemisphere activity was observed in the case of both sexual and non-sexual immoral stimuli. [...]
     The brain doesn’t process moral and immoral thoughts the same way under different circumstances. Curiously, a study from earlier this year showed that drinking something bitter deepens the perceived immorality of a certain event. When researchers asked a group of undergraduates to rate their moral distaste for various acts generally perceived as distasteful, including bribes, shoplifting, a man eating his dead dog, and two second cousins having sex. During the questioning, subjects were offered bitter, sweet or neutral drinks, the latter being water. The moral disapproval was 17% greater for those sipping bitter drinks, pointing to a possibly much greater influence of sensory experiences on our perceptions of immorality than we might have ever imagined."
— Veronica Pamoukaghlian, BrainBlogger
Read more...
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...