You're about to get a textbook lesson in why you should always, always check vintage gadgets before you toss them out. A woman discarding her late husband's electronics inadvertently gave a Milpitas recycling firm an ultra-rare Apple I computer that ...
Wake with a headache like every other day
I think I’m clenching my jaw while I sleep
Bounced awake today by the crashing panicked sounds of
Half-an-hour-late-out-the-door
(which means running early, honestly, for them)
and that goddamned BEEP-BEEP-BEEP
From every entry or exit
(why are the wealthy so desperately afraid?)
I manage to get myself upright
Empty the bladder
(and this time I don’t even have to find a way to cover my body in pretended shame)
Start into the morning routine,
Checking mail
Paying next month’s bills
(since I have enough money to do so now)
Look through Facebook, nothing critically important
Just a handful of posts complaining about
Fat women comfortable in their bodies,
Gay men enjoying sex for themselves
Religious and ethnic minorities daring to question their shitty treatment
(why are the folks benefiting most from oppression so full of hate?)
Before I can get away, get dressed, get out, get fed
The others are back again BEEP-BEEP-BEEP
Announcing that the perimeter has been breached
(they’re coming for us! you’re not safe! there’s somebody in the house! be afraid!)
Though the sniffing, snorting, nose-blowing, coughing, choking, guh-HURK! guh-HRRRRRRRRHHHHKKKKK! Of a still-untreated sickness just as loudly signals to me
That I am not safe
That I am not alone
That I am not allowed any peace
(why are my simple and specific needs so difficult to consider, so hard for others to take seriously?)
So instead of actually getting anything done,
I’m sitting here typing up this stupid thing
Doing anything I can to make more noise
Because the only option I ever seem to have is to harm myself
In a manner of my own choosing
Or to let others decide the method and amount of harm
Kennardphillipps’s new version of Andrew Wyeth’s “Christina’s World” shows a young woman in a landscape dominated by an oil refinery. (image by Kennardphillipps/Greenpeace, via Guardian)
This week, what scared Hitchcock, the future of digital arts publishing, paying for digital art commissions, copying what ISIS destroyed, an oil spill in “Christina’s World,” and more.
Have you ever wondered what scared Alfred Hitchcock? A number of biographies about the great director are reviewed in the London Review of Books:
‘The man who excels at filming fear is himself a very fearful person,’ Truffaut observed, ‘and I suspect that this trait of his personality has a direct bearing on his success.’ … Peter Ackroyd, however, is firmly of the Truffaut school. His Hitchcock trembles from the outset: ‘Fear fell upon him in early life.’ At the age of four (or 11, or …), his father had him locked up for a few minutes in a police cell, an episode that became, as Michael Wood puts it, the ‘myth of origin’ for his powerful distrust of authority. Ackroyd rummages dutifully for further evidence. Was young Alfred beaten at school by a ‘black-robed Jesuit’? Or caught out in the open when the Zeppelins raided London in 1915? Did he read too much Edgar Allan Poe? It doesn’t really add up to very much. And yet – or therefore – the strong conviction persists. Fear is the key; and not just to the life. Interview the films, he once told an inquisitive journalist. Those who have interviewed the films often conclude that, like their creator, they too tremble. ‘Hitchcock was a frightened man,’ Wood writes, ‘who got his fears to work for him on film.’
In a two-part series (1, 2), some art worlders give their perspective on the future of art publishing in the digital space (Hyperallergic gets a nice shout-out). There are lots of interesting perspectives (no real answers or solutions, of course), including this prediction by Antwaun Sargent:
There are artists who are also exploring interesting concepts like the Instagram art shows that we’ve seen increasingly. These shows are exciting because they abandon this notion that platforms, like Instagram should only play a role in the digital second life of artworks by making the Internet the first point of contact. This toying around by what some people call jpeg artists opens up the possibility of better future platforms, in the coming decade that will hopefully empower us all to better experience art. I think at a basic level that’s what both the critic and general public have always wanted.
How much should artists be paid for digital commissions? e-flux was curious about this and decided to ask W.A.G.E., the New York–based group that advocates for fair artist compensation from nonprofits and other arts organizations:
From W.A.G.E.’s point of view, the work of artists, at least inrelation to art institutions in the nonprofit sector, is the provisionof content and services in the capacity of a subcontractor. As such,we believe it is in the strategic and ethical interest of artists toalign themselves with others functioning in a similar capacity.Given the exclusion of manual labor from digital art production, standards for its compensation should be set with this supplychain in mind, and in relation to “W.A.G.E. Certification,” aprogram initiated and operated by W.A.G.E. that certifies thosenonprofit institutions paying fees that meet W.A.G.E.’s minimumpayment standards.
The social media engagement for the Met Gala this year was very impressive, and the Metropolitan Museum produced this infographic:
Physical exile can be shared, but the exile of the mind is much harder to render equal. It is the modern yet recycled condition of a generation obsessed with mobility, yet living mostly stagnant lives, or in an enduringly stagnant state of mind. Fear of mediocrity has made them banal. Chasing things, rather than ideas, chasing sporadic bursts of fun and living in a state of semi fear that they might be missing out on something (or someone more) fun.
Related: Nicholas McGeehan, a Middle East researcher at Human Rights Watch, has written about the “art and hypocrisy in the Gulf“:
These institutions, and some art critics as well, have touted their move to Abu Dhabi as a turning point in cultural history. But right now, in a climate of increasing repression, it seems that art and culture are being put into the service of money and power, an unquestioning surrender to authority that contradicts these liberal institutions’ very ideals.
Kriston Capps suggests the FIFA scandal may have an undesirable impact on architects:
After Qatar, architects may continue to claim that, like doctors, they don’t get to pick their clients. Or that there are no wholly decent clients, so all questions of moral rectitude just fall away. Stefan Klos, Speer’s project manager in Qatar, said as much in Der Spiegel:
SPIEGEL: Would you refuse to work in a country that keeps political prisoners and has the death penalty?
[Stefan] Klos: You are referring to the U.S. and Guantanamo?
Sociologist Sylvie Tissot subverts this image of civic associations in her new book, out in June, Good Neighbors: Gentrifying Diversity in Boston’s South End. Tissot, a native of France who now teaches in Paris, was a visiting scholar at Harvard University in the early 2000s. While in Boston, she did fieldwork on a group of urban elites who — under the rhetoric of progressivism and diversity — were unwittingly exerting their power over local politics, morality, culture and public space through their participation in neighborhood associations.
Her work is a fascinating analysis of exclusion, lack of self-awareness and conflicting values. I spoke with Tissot about urban liberalism, what it means that she was welcomed by these groups, and how the terms “diversity” and “civic engagement” are wielded.
Writing for the Washington Post, Orin Keer hits the nail on the head in one, long sentence about the hypocrisy of the Bill Clinton impeachment silliness:
If I understand the history correctly, in the late 1990s, the President was impeached for lying about a sexual affair by a House of Representatives led by a man who was also then hiding a sexual affair, who was supposed to be replaced by another Congressman who stepped down when forced to reveal that he too was having a sexual affair, which led to the election of a new Speaker of the House who now has been indicted for lying about payments covering up his sexual contact with a boy.
Yikes.
And artist Morehshin Allahyari wants to duplicate the artifacts that ISIS destroyed at the Mosul Museum:
Now, Allahyari is working on digitally fabricating the sculptures for a series called “Material Speculation” as part of a residency in Autodesk’s Pier 9 program. The first in the series is “Material Speculation: ISIS,” which, through intense research, is modeling and reproducing statues destroyed by ISIS in 2015. Allahyari isn’t just interested in replicating lost objects but making it possible for anyone to do the same: Embedded within each semi-translucent copy is a flash drive with Allahyari’s research about the artifacts, and an online version is coming.
Required Reading is published every Sunday morning ET, and is comprised of a short list of art-related links to long-form articles, videos, blog posts, or photo essays worth a second look.
In an effort to democratize both the creation and appreciation of urban graffiti, a group of young street artists in Lisbon, Portugal, is teaching retirees how to create their own stencils and tags.
LATA 65 (lata meaning ‘can’ in Portugese) has so far introduced 100 aging participants to the art of spray painting and student work is already popping up in the form of tags and murals brightening up buildings and walls around town.
Led by veteran street artists, this gang of older students is learning not just how to create art but also about the history of the form, providing them not just with tools and techniques but cultural context for their studies as well.
Their efforts are primarily being put toward enlivening dilapidated areas in need of fresh interventions and additional attention. Underlying the artwork itself, however, is a philosophy of bridging generational gaps and bringing new perspectives to a mode of expression typically associated with youth culture.
While the elderly students are so far following the footsteps of their younger instructors, one has to wonder if their approaches may eventually develop in new and different directions, in turn providing novel sources of inspiration and innovation not yet thought of by their more youthful compatriots.
Want More? Click for Great Related Content on WebUrbanist:
These street art images and biographies merely scratch the surface and begin to convey their amazing artistic talents though sample artworks and street chalk ...Click Here to Read More »»
NeverWet has been making headlines as the silicon-based spray that repels liquids from clothes and electronics, but this off-book use shows another fascinating ...Click Here to Read More »»
That time James Bond replied to homoerotic taunting not with some macho no homo bullshit, but by calmly implying he was bisexual anyway and somehow did not suddenly cease to be awesome but instead roughly doubled in awesome points.
I love this scene so much.
Canonly bisexual James Bond must continue to be a thing forever, please.
First of all, you are correct- apes are not the only mammals to have clitorises. You know which mammals have them? ALL OF THEM! CLITORISES FOR EVERYBODY!
That’s right- EVERY female mammal has a clitoris, even the really weird ones like platypi and echidnas. Not only that, there are quite a few remarkable clits out there. Squirrel monkeys have erectile clitorises which they use in dominance displays. Elephant clitorises are about 18 inches (45 cm) long! Galagos actually pee through their clits! And we all know about spotted hyenas, right?
Indeed, in the same manner that many mammal males have a bone in their penis (the baculum) the females of that same species actually have bones in their clits (the baubellum)!
And guess what, just like mammals aren’t the only ones to have evolved penis-like organs, they also aren’t the only ones to have evolved clitoris-like organs. Ostriches, ducks, and crocodilians have extendable clitorises (in fact, the genitals of male and female crocodiles look confusingly similar when extruded). Squamate reptiles have hemiclitores- that’s two clitorises on one lizard!
(I bet you weren’t expecting them to be bright orange.)
It is likely true, in fact, that many other non-mammals have clitorises that we simply don’t know about. Why? Because despite the literal oceans of research into penises and penis-type things, the clitoris gets barely a paragraph or two of mumbled speculation in any reproductive anatomy textbook. In fact, the aforementioned hemiclitores were only named in 1995- scientists were dissecting lizards long before then.
The fact of the matter is that there is no real consensus on why the clitoris evolved because nobody is studying it. And why? This seems like a big deal! If all mammals and even some non-mammals have them, wouldn’t you say it’s something that’s been conserved for a reason?
Some scientists say no, the clitoris is just an artifact of an unformed penis: a leftover, vestigial organ in females like male nipples. Certainly the clitoris derives from the same developmental pathway that the penis does, and has many of the same features on the smaller scale. Yet for something that is supposedly vestigial, the clit is pretty well-maintained. It’s surrounded by spongy erectile tissue in mammals and full of nerves- in fact, more than the penis has. And the human clit is not just a tiny penis, though this was only recently discovered: it is actually just the tip of a large submerged organ that extends laterally around the vaginal walls. It’s known that at least mice have this submerged version of the clit as well, and probably all other mammals.
Most scientists now will begrudgingly agree that the function of the clit is, above all else, to provide sexual pleasure, but few agree entirely on why the sensitive tip of the pleasure center is located (in many cases) externally when fertilization takes place internally. Here is a grab bag of theories:
Females are more likely to mate more frequently if orgasm (via clitoris) is harder to reach
How well a male stimulates the clitoris tells a female something about his genetic desirability
The clitoris is a specific adaptation for human face-to-face sex
Obviously that last one is bunk, since we now know that clits are literally everywhere, all around us. And the other two are weakly supported at best, though there is good evidence that, at least in primates, larger clits indicate a more polyandrous lifestyle.
But the fact of the matter is that the topic has been barely touched in the scientific literature. And so any conclusions at this point don’t have the evidence behind them to go beyond mere speculation.
Speaking for myself, I wonder why female masturbation doesn’t figure more often into these theories: female animals do, in fact, masturbate, just like the males do. Furthermore, female sexual pleasure is often masked in animals because their arousal tends to be less obvious than an erect penis. (Or, when it occurs, it’s deliberately ignored because it’s ~embarassing~.) Could a dog licking her vulva be experiencing sexual pleasure? Well, studies have shown that cats, rabbits, and mice become aroused by pressure on the clitoris, so the answer is yeah- probably! If there’s a theory that male masturbation helps clean out the penis (there is) why not one for female masturbation?
Of course, this all hinges on the idea that there needs to be an evolutionary reason beyond the ability to have pleasurable sex for the clitoris. Perhaps we’re too quick to dismiss the power of pleasure as a motivator- particularly in animals.
Final thoughts: the male chicken’s “non-intromissive phallus” is arguably a clitoris. (Does that convince you more that it has an important function?)
New York-based artist, Daniel Rozin, creates incredible installations and sculptures that react to the movements of viewers.
His latest project called “PomPom Mirror”, features a synchronized array of 928 spherical faux fur puffs controlled by hundreds of motors that respond to the presence of viewers using computer-vision.
Evan Young is graduating from Twin Peaks Charter Academy High School in Colorado with a 4.5 GPA, a full ride at Rutgers, and the honor of being his class valedictorian. He’s been working hard to reach this goal, and so he worked hard on the speech that he would give at graduation when he was recognized.
But that didn’t happen. When Young gave his speech to administrators for edits, they asked him to remove a portion in which he came out as gay. He refused, saying that respect was a crucial theme he wanted to talk about in his speech. So they banned him from speaking, didn’t recognize him as valedictorian, and outed him to his parents to discuss what had happened.
“One of my themes is that I was going to tell everyone my secrets,” Young explained Thursday. “Most of the things were stupid stuff — books I never read that I was supposed to, or homework I didn’t like. But then I gradually worked up to serious secrets.
“My main theme is that you’re supposed to be respectful of people, even if you don’t agree with them. I figured my gayness would be a very good way to address that.” […]
A statement released by the school’s board of directors stated that Young failed to abide by pre-screening rules — and also “failed to follow guidelines of the evening by removing the sleeves of his graduation gown.”
A comment in that statement, attributed to school attorney Barry Arrington, said a graduation ceremony is “a time for family and those closest to the students to celebrate success and express mutual wishes of gratitude and respect. It is not a time for a student to use his commencement speech to push his personal agenda on a captive audience, and school officials are well within their rights to prevent that from happening.”
I cannot believe this is still happening.
Fuck you, Board of Directors of Twin Peaks Charter Academy High School. Fuck you very much.
I’ve said this before and I’ll point it out again -
Menstruation is caused by change in hormonal levels to stop the creation of a uterine lining and encourage the body to flush the lining out. The body does this by lowering estrogen levels and raising testosterone.
Or, to put it more plainly “That time of the month” is when female hormones most closely resemble male hormones. So if (cis) women aren’t suited to office at “That time of the month” then (cis) men are NEVER suited to office.
If you are a dude and don’t dig the ladies around you at their time of the month, just think! That is you all of the time.
And, on a final note, post-menopausal (cis) women are the most hormonally stable of all human demographics. They have fewer hormonal fluctuations of anyone, meaning older women like Hilary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren would theoretically be among the least likely candidates to make an irrational decision due to hormonal fluctuations, and if we were basing our leadership decisions on hormone levels, then only women over fifty should ever be allowed to hold office.
“I had a ton of fun during the Korean War. There were 10-15 gay soldiers on the base. As long as we weren’t seen doing anything, they could’t discharge us. So we all rented a hotel room once a month, plastered the wall with Playbills from A Streetcar Named Desire, and had lots of sex.”
A few weeks back, the hashtag #girlswithtoys was trending thanks to female scientists responding to astronomer Shri Kulkarni, who gave an interview in which he labeled astronomers as “boys with toys.” #girlswithtoys showed pics and stories of women working with awesome research equipment. It was fun.
But apparently, Kulkarni is in dire need of defense, and so his good friend and colleague Matthew Bailes has come to his rescue. Until I read this piece, I was unaware that Kulkarni had been subjected to any particularly abusive responses. After I read the piece, I am still unaware, but I am more aware that Bailes believes he was and that Bailes believes that his essay is an adequate defense against them. Here are a few thoughts I had while reading Bailes’s post.
Unfortunately for Shri, it was because in an interview with National Public Radio he had described many scientists as secretly being “boys with toys”. Worse, he had said “You’re not supposed to say that”, which indicated that although it might be controversial, he said it anyway – which is typical of Shri.
There are many ways to interpret Shri’s comment, one is that scientists are boys, but as it turns out that is not what Shri meant.
What Shri meant, apparently, is that “you’re not supposed to say” the word “toys,” not “boys.” This matters, because it makes it clear that he’s very aware of and concerned with the dangerous stereotype of scientists not being serious researchers, and not at all aware or concerned with the stereotype of scientists being male.
In a bygone era, such a comment might have left many women scientists annoyed, but not had much of a medium for transport.
The good ol’ days! When men were men and women shut up about it.
But in today’s era of blogs and the Twitterverse it wasn’t long before the hash-tag #girlswithtoys was born, with inspirational images of women doing science with science “toys” of their own. Many were quite inspiring and demonstrated the pride with which these women take their occupation. A very positive response. Indeed it was so popular that it spawned a large number of images and tweets.
Note for ladies: this response is APPROVED.
But then articles began to appear with statements in them such as:
And that’s when I got angry.
Luckily, Twitter, oasis of calling people on their shit, has decided to call Kulkarni on his shit.
Kulkarni may have intended to counter the false assumption that science can’t be fun, but in referring to these scientists as ‘boys’ he erased an already marginalized population of the field: Women.
What Kulkarni fails to realize is that many scientists are also ‘GIRLS with toys’
This response is NOT APPROVED.
I don’t believe that any of these authors talked to Shri for clarification about what he meant – perhaps they felt they didn’t need to?
If his crime was to use the phrase “boys with toys”, and that is your threshold for sexism worthy of some of the abusive responses above, then ok – stop reading now.
At this point, I did stop reading, but only to scroll up the page to find the abusive responses that Bailes cites. I swear, I searched all over the page but for the life of me I couldn’t find one. Did he forget to include it? Was there some editorial mix-up where it was deleted? Because surely he’s not referring to the person saying that Kulkarni unintentionally erased women with his words? If that’s abusive, I have some bad news for Bailes about what it’s like to be a woman on the Internet.
My problem is that I have known Shri for many years, and I don’t believe that he’s even remotely sexist.
That is a problem! Clearly.
But in 2015 can one defend someone who’s been labeled sexist without a social media storm?
It’s only at this point that I realize I’ve fallen into his trap. By criticizing his post, I’ve become yet another abusive woman on social media, attacking a man. Oh for the days of yore, when I would have read his article, been annoyed, and had no outlet for that annoyance but to go bake a cake or something.
Are people open to the possibility that actually Kulkarni might be very honourable in his dealings with women?
I read this in the voice of Vincent D’Onofrio as Kingpin.
If you would like to know what Shri meant, read on.
Shri explained to me that he himself is actually more motivated by the design and construction of “cool gizmos” than the ultimate science. Scientists are not supposed to say that because we get funded by agencies for the science, not the instrument. His reference to boys with toys was idiomatic as in the sense that some astronomers dote excessively on their instruments, see wiktionary’s description of the phrase.
It’s a shame there was no other way to convey that idea without also subtly adding to the idea that science is for boys.
If Shri had said, “some astronomers are like kids with toys”, or “I’m like a kid with a new toy”, would we have all gone back to our day jobs?
Oh! Oh, yes, that would have been perfect actually. Huh.
The Shri I know is incredibly arrogant – but strangely lovable, in part because his arrogance is only surpassed by his scientific talent and his consistency in being completely intolerant to bad science.
Okay?
(Kulkarni’s Scientific Achievements)
Okay?
In 1986 I first met Shri at a conference in Nanjing, China. He sat in the front row and energised the meeting, insisting on asking a question at the conclusion of every talk, often prefaced with statements like: “I have a radical theory…”
That’s not a question, and I bet it’s an abuse of the word “theory,” too. But okay?
One night I went out to Nanjing’s only disco with Shri and watched him try to get the band – that couldn’t speak English – to play some rock and roll. When the best they could do was a slow Elvis number he went into the middle of a dance floor and screamed and danced as if they were playing something of a completely different tempo and era.
I bet everybody loved that!
Over the years I’d see Shri at different science meetings. In all of them he’s been incredibly intolerant of bad science and calls it for what it is. He teases entire discipline groups, saying things like: “You people trying to measure dark energy are really wasting your time, the Nobel prize has already been awarded.”
Huh, that almost sounds like it would qualify for someone’s flexible definition of “abusive.”
Once at a large international meeting I gave the last talk in the session and had decided to start with a humorous cartoon describing binary stellar evolution. Shortly after completing my rather long and amusing introduction, the chair gave me a one minute warning and it left me no time for my science as all the previous speakers had run over time! It wasn’t a great talk.
Prediction: the long and amusing introduction was not amusing.
That night Shri said to me: “Because I am your friend I’m going to tell you that your talk was terrible.” It was his way of showing that he cared. Don’t waste your limited scientific opportunities – a valuable lesson.
Huh, that almost sounds like it would qualify for someone’s flexible definition of “abusive.” I mean, Barnes didn’t mean to give a terrible talk. I even heard the introduction was amusing! If he didn’t mean for it to be terrible, it could not have been terrible. Why would Kulkarni say otherwise?
The next night we found ourselves at the conference dinner. Shri noticed there was a distinct hierarchy in the table seatings.
Together we worked on an after-dinner speech that I found myself delivering. I thanked our hosts, but soon explained that the table numbers were non-random. To be seated at Table 1 you have to be either the president of a learned academy, a Nobel Laureate or the descendent of one. Table 2 consists of “those who aspire to be at Table 1”, an amusing, confronting but probably truthful line.
I bet everybody loved that!
(Kulkarni’s Scientific Achievements Part 2)
Okay?
Shri likes to taunt his fellow astronomers, on his university web page he has a statement that: “Given a sufficiently large telescope, a sufficiently idiotic astronomer can always make a discovery.”
Huh, that almost sounds like it would qualify for someone’s flexible definition of “abusive.”
Shri has no tolerance for mediocrity in science, and won’t take on students he considers only average, as he thinks that they are wasting everyone’s time, including their own.
He sounds great!
It may be convenient for some people who’ve never met Shri to paint him as some incredibly sexist individual that is compounding the issues faced by women in science with off-hand comments like his “boys with toys” line.
I’m not sure if it’s convenient or if anyone has actually done it (citation missing, see above), but it does seem pretty easy after reading all this.
But many of his former female students and postdocs, of whom he is very proud, have thrived in his group and gone onto prestigious positions, and other women recently posted on Facebook how welcome they’ve always felt in his group.
I wonder what a post from one of them would have been like?
In Shri’s opinion, you get places with hard work and achievement regardless of other’s opinions or attitudes. Indeed a long time ago he told me that he is completely opposed to positive discrimination. This initially surprised me, as he came to the US as a dark-skinned foreigner, and I would have thought been subject to all sorts of discrimination, but I’ve come to learn that he is nothing if not consistent.
Talking about how Kulkarni is against “positive discrimination” is a great way to demonstrate how he can’t possibly be sexist.
In my experience, the only thing that Shri cares about an astronomer is their scientific ability and achievements. He couldn’t care less about their sex, race or religion, or what people think about his tact. If you want to impress Shri, do something original, not jump on the latest bandwagon.
Not caring about people’s attributes or feelings is another great way to demonstrate how someone can’t possibly be sexist.
Shri himself might offer the example of his sister as someone who overcame sexism in the workplace.
He might, but would he do it while also saying, “Oh, sorry I said a thing that unintentionally reinforced the sexism that has directly affected even members of my own family”? If so, then that’s cool of him.
Sudha Murthy was a university gold medallist who was disqualified from applying for a job at TATA Engineering on the basis of her sex – “Ladies need not apply”.
Rather than be denied, she wrote a postcard to the head of the company who subsequently flew her down for an interview. After being grilled for hours they relented and offered her a job at which she excelled.
Some years later she took her life savings (of about US$150) and invested it in her husband’s company, Infosys. It is now worth US$42-billion. She became a famous author and one of India’s most generous philanthropists. Google her, her story is an inspiration.
She sounds great! It’s a shame she wasn’t the one giving the NPR interview, but I’m certainly glad that none of the criticisms of Kulkarni have also criticized his sister, because that would be alarming.
The purpose of this article is not to argue that because Shri is a genius he should be immune to criticism, but rather to explain his intellect, scientific impact, and consistency.
Shri’s statements to NPR were more about his own child-like fascination with instrumentation than any deliberate attempt to marginalise women.
Project from Google ATAP looks into ways to turn textiles into interactive interfaces:
Project Jacquard is a new system for weaving technology into fabric,
transforming everyday objects, like clothes, into interactive surfaces.
Project Jacquard will allow designers and developers to build connected,
touch-sensitive textiles into their own products. This is just the
beginning, and we’re very excited to see what people will do with it.
I took this photo a few months ago at the museum booijmans van beuningen in Rotterdam. It’s a painting of Salvador Dali called “a couple with their heads full of clouds” from 1936.
You're about to get a textbook lesson in why you should always, always check vintage gadgets before you toss them out. A woman discarding her late husband's electronics inadvertently gave a Milpitas recycling firm an ultra-rare Apple I computer that ...
Have you ever wondered what scared Alfred Hitchcock? A number of biographies about the great director are reviewed in the London Review of Books:
