firehose

In professional cycling, the most prominant competition may be the Tour de France, in which men compete over multiple stages and terrains, over the course of about three weeks, to determine a victor. A group of female professional cyclists and triathaletes, Emma Pooley, Kathryn Bertine, Marianne Vos, and Chrissie Wellington, now want to challenge the inequality that has plagued the sport of cycling by opening up the Tour de France to female cyclists, addressing the issue in a very public manner. Pooley, Bertine, Vos, and Wellington are asking those who support their cause to sign their petition on Change.org urging the organizers of the Tour de France to create another aspect of the Tour de France for women, a

professional field running in conjunction with the men's event, at the same time, over the same distances, on the same days, with modifications in start/finish times so neither gender's race interferes with the other.

The Chinese government’s official broadcast media says that ice cubes served in KFC were 12 times dirtier than toilet water—and 19 times the national bacteria level standard.

The report, which was based on samples the China Central Television (CCTV) reporter took in eastern Beijing, found that ice cubes at Chinese fast food chain Kung Fu also out-germed toilet water. While McDonald’s ice cubes also exceeded the national bacteria level standard, though they were still cleaner than toilet water.

A food safety expert interviewed in the initial segment—CCTV has since aired many more—said the bacteria could cause dysentery and diarrhea (link in Chinese). After the initial CCTV report aired on Sunday, discussion of the issue went, er, viral on Sina Weibo. Since then, KFC, McDonald’s and Kung Fu have all apologized and vowed to clean their ice machines. Here’s a look at some of the footage from the CCTV report (link in Chinese):

Toilets are obviously not primed for drinking; the risk they pose to human health comes from bacteria transmitted via fecal matter—bacteria like e. coli, for instance.

But while the CCTV report was based on the raw number of bacteria colonies, it didn’t reveal what sort of bacteria it found. That makes it somewhat misleading (link in Chinese), as one food safety expert told First Financial Daily. “The [headline] might be a little eye-grabbing, but it’s not that useful—for instance, the bacteria count on your teeth or on the bottom of your shoe is about the same,” Dong Qingli, a food safety expert, told the paper. “Instead you should look at which actual bacteria types exceeded levels.”

Bacteria-infested fast food restaurant ice machines are common outside China, too. Last year, a report on a slew of fast food outlets in the UK proved similarly shocking to the public, and prompted a government-accredited laboratory to name them a “hygiene risk.” None of those samples contained bacteria that were actually harmful to human health.

While this is no excuse for neglecting to clean your ice machine, it does provide some useful context that CCTV appeared to have omitted. The network is well-known for needling corporations in the name of consumer rights. These types of exposés used to proliferate around “consumer day” in mid-March each year—Apple was this year’s example. But they appear to be branching out.

KFC parent company Yum Brands in particular has attracted media scrutiny. Reports last year about KFC’s use of “fast-growing chickens” frightened consumers and turned out to be false, though a follow-up report on use of antibiotics was accurate. And it’s not just media; in May, the Shanghai government alleged health code violations at Little Sheep Hotpot, which KFC owns (the results of its investigation remain unclear). At the time, Yum denied the charges.

China generates around half of Yum’s revenues. Along with the effects of the Avian flu outbreak, scandals may have hurt its financial performance of late—same-store sales fell 29% in April. Here’s a look at its stock performance:

tinylovenotes:

Clarissa and I have big dreams. 

Hiroki Kuroda delivered a pitch in the bottom of the third inning, and Boston's Jose Iglesias pulled it foul into New York's dugout. Finding a Yankees cap somewhere, the boy placed it on his head — over his Red Sox cap, so it wouldn't touch his growing scalp and possibly transmit A-Rod cooties — and obscured his true allegiance. Thomson turned, nodded fraternally at the "Yankees fan" and rolled the ball to the boy over the top of the dugout. All based on a lie. After making off with the loot, the kid pulled the Yankees cap off his head — ick — and whipped it against the dugout. An odor?

Here’s what’s holding back 3D printing, the technology that’s supposed to revolutionize manufacturing and countless other industries: patents. In February 2014, key patents that currently prevent competition in the market for the most advanced and functional 3D printers will expire, says Duann Scott, design evangelist at 3D printing company Shapeways.

These patents cover a technology known as “laser sintering,” the lowest-cost 3D printing technology. Because of its high resolution in all three dimensions, laser sintering can produce goods that can be sold as finished products.

Whenever someone talks about 3D printing revolutionizing manufacturing, they’re talking about the kinds of goods produced by, for example, the industrial-grade 3D printing machines used by Shapeways. The company used by countless industrial designers, artists and entrepreneurs who can’t afford their own 3D laser sintering printers, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars each.

A huge drop in price and a flood of Chinese 3D printers

Once the key patents on 3D printing via laser sintering expire, we could see huge drop in the price of these devices, says Scott. This isn’t just idle speculation; when the key patents expired on a more primitive form of 3D printing, known as fused deposition modeling, the result was an explosion of open-source FDM printers that eventually led to iconic home and hobbyist 3D printer manufacturer Makerbot. And Makerbot was recently acquired by 3D printing giant Stratasys for about $400 million in stock, plus a potential $200 million stock bonus. That acquisition was a homecoming of sorts for Makerbot; Stratasys was founded by Charles Hull, who invented 3D printing via FDM, the very technology on which Makerbot was based.

Within just a few years of the patents on FDM expiring, the price of the cheapest FDM printers fell from many thousands of dollars to as little as $300. This led to a massive democratization of hobbyist-level 3D printers and injected a huge amount of excitement into the nascent movement of “Makers,” who manufacture at home on the scale of one object at a time.

A similar sequence involving the lifting of intellectual property barriers, a rise in competition, and a huge drop in price is likely to play out again in laser deposition 3D printers, says Shapeways’ Scott. “This is what happened with FDM,” he says. “As soon as the patents expired, everything exploded and went open-source, and now there are hundreds of FDM machines on the market. An FDM machine was $14,000 five years ago and now it’s $300.”

Many of those inexpensive 3D printers are being manufactured in—where else?—China. In addition to a thriving home-grown industry in 3D printers, in 2012 China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology launched an initiative to fund 10 research centers devoted to 3D printing, at a cost of 200 million yuan ($32 million).

Disruptive implications for industry and the democratization of distributed manufacturing

One thing a lot of observers don’t understand about 3D printing is that not all 3D printing technologies are created equal. The revolution in manufacturing that was supposed to come with cheap, desktop 3D printers hasn’t materialized because, frankly, the models they produce are basically novelties, handy for giving you a feel for what something will look like in three dimensions, but not really usable for creating prototypes that can be directly translated into molds for mass production, and certainly not usable for creating finished goods.

With the expiration of patents on laser sintering 3D printing, however, all of that is about to change. Currently, designers who want to go from idea to finished product in a matter of hours, and create finished products to sell to the public—like these accessories for Google Glass—have to order 3D prints from a company like Shapeways. The problem is, Shapeways’ services are in such demand that it takes two weeks to get a finished product from the company, which is hardly the future of instant manufacturing that 3D printing was supposed to enable.

One of Shapeways’ problems is that the company can’t buy enough advanced 3D printers (the laser-sintering kind) to keep up with demand. This is because 3D Systems, the company that makes the models that Shapeways uses, has a 12- to 18-month waitlist for its printers. Cheap laser-sintering 3D printers of the sort made by Formlabs, which sells a desktop laser-sintering 3D printer for $3,300, could finally give people the ability to manufacture (plastic) parts of the same quality as those mass-produced through traditional means, such as injection molding. (Formlabs got around the patent issue by first getting sued by and then licensing the IP of 3D Systems, which controls the key patents that are set to expire.)

Or, if you believe Duann Scott, people will continue to use services like those of his company so that they can get even higher quality 3D prints, and in larger quantities—and, potentially, much faster than the current turnaround time of two weeks. All of this means that the release of these patents could be an important step in getting us to the future of mass customization and distributed manufacturing that we were promised.

Biz Stone said something very clearly and concisely that defines the way tech is funded these days. He says if he can't figure out an app in a minute, he mov es on. That's both true, and is a huge problem. (And I thank him for saying it so clearly because it gives me something to respond to.)

Yes there are products that can be understood in a minute, and I use some of them, so there's nothing wrong with having simple products that don't do much. But general-purpose tools that turn creativity into usable results aren't like that. Even entertainment isn't like that.

An example. I tried three or four times to get into Game of Thrones, the great HBO series, by watching the first episode. I found it confusing and hard to understand. I'd stick with it for ten or fifteen minutes, and give up. But I kept hearing how much people loved it. So I persevered. On the fourth or fifth try I made it through the first episode. And then the second, and then I was on my way to a binge that took me through all thirty episodes, not just once, but twice. And now I'm reading the books. ;-)

And that's just entertainment.

I remember when I first saw a spreadsheet and the magic of recalc. But it took months for me to become proficient spreadsheet user. And when I saw a serious user of VisiCalc, I knew I'd never get that far into it. But I was blown away that there was so much depth to it.

Even Twitter required more than one approach for me to understand how useful it was. And I'm sure that's what Stone was thinking of. Twitter is not trivial and it can't be understood in a minute, but it's still very valuable.

Even so, what he says is true. I sent my ten steps to first post list to a VC friend. But clearly after the first step (which was go to fargo.io) he ditched the list, and made it up himself, and never got to first post. Now that would be fine if VCs weren't the gatekeepers, but they are. And that limits the products they fund to things that are understandable by fumbling around for a minute or so.

Why does it matter? Well, software is, in every way, the leading edge of technology. If we limit the edge to simple ideas, ideas as simple as an advertisement, what chance do we have of solving the massive problems we face? Many of those problems are technological in nature, and require thought and organization. Tools that tackle those problems can be pretty simple, but not so simple that they pass The Biz Test.

I know Biz is a good guy, and he wants to work on the vexing problems of our day, but to do that we need to empower people with deep tools that leverage their intellect. Sure, let's have easy feature-based products. But let's also build tools that are capable of helping augment our intellect so we can tackle the really big problems we face.

giver-of-armbands:

Five years ago I wrote an article for Børsen, the leading financial newspaper in Denmark, about the Panama hat. I told about the origin in Ecuador, the toquilla palm fibers, the grade related to the fineness of fibers used, the classic Optimo model with the fold in the crown, and the world-wide popularization, which came with the construction of the Panama Channel in start of the 20th Century.

Since then I have often had in mind to have one made up. To me a task like that demands a craftsman, though, and I didn’t meet one I would trust it to, so nothing happened.

Then, last year, I past a small but elegant hat shop on Store Kongensgade in the old part of Copenhagen. I had passed it before but this time I took a closer look.

It turned out that the owner, Susanne Juul, trained as a bespoke tailor before she went to hat making. Moreover, she apprenticed at Mokjær. This background made me very confident, because bespoke tailoring is supposed to be the mother of all clothing crafts. It gives you the founding techniques and feel for materials. I decided to start a Panama hat order. (Afterwards, I should discover that people, who know more about hats than I do, regard Susanne Juul as the best modiste and hat maker in Denmark).

To begin with, I had to find a raw hat for the project. That I bought from Robert at Panama Bob’s. I chose a 22 grade, which has a rather fine and thin fiber base but nothing extreme. The hat stayed in the drawer during winter, and in May the finishing took off.

First step was to decide on the hat form. I went for an old one from now defunct Skodsborg Hat Factory north of Copenhagen. The form has a tall crown, which should slim the face a little, which is convenient, if you have a broad face like yours truly.

Susanne Juul moistened the raw hat before she began moulding it around the form. Then she pinned it, and the hat would dry overnight.

Ironing began. Susanne Juul gave both brim and crown heat.

For the ribbon, I chose a thick dark brown band made of viscose. Susanne Juul told me that it is getting increasingly difficult to find this type of hat bands. Newer ribbons made of polyester don’t respond to heat properly, and don’t have the elasticity of viscose, which is important for a smooth fit of the hat.

Many producers will paint their straw hats with lacquer to set the shape. We avoided it. We agreed that lacquer isn’t in line with the history of the Panama hat. Susanne Juul did, however, strengthen the brim with a wire.

As always, if I intend to shoot a self-portrait, things got complicated, when I wanted to take a garden photo of myself in a bespoke apricote voile shirt and the Panama hat from Susanne Juul. Luckily, my sister spotted my struggle, and I could skip the self-portrait.

Source: The Journal of Style

---

Get more on my Twitter

“I got dressed up in my Wolverine costume this morning and walked around San Diego. And not one person stopped me. One person said ‘Not Bad.’ Another said ‘Too tall.’”

- Hugh Jackman at Days of Future Past panel (via animerunner)

iago-rotten:

_{"I wanted to ask the original trilogy actors: What’s it feel like to return to these characters after so long? And for the new First Class actors: What’s it like for you guys to get to mix with the original cast’s actors? "}

Sir Ian McKellen constantly delivering it since 1939.

Foda-se essa merda (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

Original Source

In real life, Cranston looks more like "Malcolm in the Middle's" Hal than his "Breaking Bad" character Walter White (aka Heisenberg); he's clean-shaven, with a full head of hair. But just to mess with fans at Comic-Con this weekend, he put on a Walter White mask, complete with bald head and goatee, and roamed the halls unrecognized. (That's Cranston there, on the left.) He even used a higher voice to conceal his identity from fans.

archimaps:

Viviani’s 1883 master plan for Rome

laughterkey:

fuckyeahcourtneyy:

This is the greatest knock knock joke in the history of all knock knocks jokes ever.

Still one of my favorite posts on Tumblr.

Original Source

abotl:

glitterlion:

ONLY 7 MORE DAYS TO HELP BLACK GIRLS CODE RAISE $100K

witchsistah:

theblackdripsgold:

LET’S HELP!  REPOST ON YOUR FACEBOOK, TWITTER, ANYTHING. SEND OUT A MASS EMAIL! THIS IS IMPORTANT. 

Black Girls Code NEEDS YOU. 

This is a unique non-profit that introduces young girls of color into the fields of technology. They are influencing and building the next pioneers!

They desperately need your help to raise 100k and introduce young girls of color into the fields of technology!

DONATE WHAT EVER YOU CAN! They have some amazing perks!

Let’s enrich our girls of color. They too deserve to learn in an environment that does not isolate them. THIS IS IMPORTANT.

So only 160 notes. 

Welp, just goes to show the only folks who care about Black women and Black girls are Black women and Black girls.

So much for White feminism’s “sisterhood" or Black men’s “Black unity."

If you have the resources, Black Girls Code is a really amazing program and you should look into it and help them out.

meme4u:

http://memeblock.com/

Next year, kickass astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson launches a 13 episode reboot of Carl Sagan's classic Cosmos on FOX. Unveiled today at Comic-Con, it looks amazing.

Read more...

Biz Stone said something very clearly and concisely that defines the way tech is funded these days. He says if he can't figure out an app in a minute, he moves on. That's both true, and is a huge problem. (And I thank him for saying it so clearly because it gives me something to respond to.)

Yes there are products that can be understood in a minute, and I use some of them, so there's nothing wrong with having simple products that don't do much. But general-purpose tools that turn creativity into usable results aren't like that. Even entertainment isn't like that.

An example. I tried three or four times to get into Game of Thrones, the great HBO series, by watching the first episode. I found it confusing and hard to understand. I'd stick with it for ten or fifteen minutes, and give up. But I kept hearing how much people loved it. So I persevered. On the fourth or fifth try I made it through the first episode. And then the second, and then I was on my way to a binge that took me through all thirty episodes, not just once, but twice. And now I'm reading the books. ;-)

And that's just entertainment.

I remember when I first saw a spreadsheet and the magic of recalc. But it took months for me to become proficient spreadsheet user. And when I saw a serious user of VisiCalc, I knew I'd never get that far into it. But I was blown away that there was so much depth to it.

Even Twitter required more than one approach for me to understand how useful it was. And I'm sure that's what Stone was thinking of. Twitter is not trivial and it can't be understood in a minute, but it's still very valuable.

Even so, what he says is true. I sent my ten steps to first post list to a VC friend. But clearly after the first step (which was go to fargo.io) he ditched the list, and made it up himself, and never got to first post. Now that would be fine if VCs weren't the gatekeepers, but they are. And that limits the products they fund to things that are understandable by fumbling around for a minute or so.

Why does it matter? Well, software is, in every way, the leading edge of technology. If we limit the edge to simple ideas, ideas as simple as an advertisement, what chance do we have of solving the massive problems we face? Many of those problems are technological in nature, and require thought and organization. Tools that tackle those problems can be pretty simple, but not so simple that they pass The Biz Test.

I know Biz is a good guy, and he wants to work on the vexing problems of our day, but to do that we need to empower people with deep tools that leverage their intellect. Sure, let's have easy feature-based products. But let's also build tools that are capable of helping augment our intellect so we can tackle the really big problems we face.

fixed


original

desponsa submitted:

Fix of this post.

Covered her up a tiny bit. Also used more of the red so that it wasn’t there just to draw attention to her boobs. It’s a shame about the armour because I really like the art style.

(As you can tell, I cannot draw armour. Please be gentle.)

What are you talking about?? This is breathtaking!

In popular culture[edit]

• Rat-In-A-Hat is the Cuddles Avenue shopkeeper in the television series Bananas in Pyjamas.

Link (Please note, this is the entirety of the ‘in popular culture’ section)

Read 11 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Joan Cornellà