This robot lawyer helps the newly evicted file for housing aid OCRegister He's the creator of DoNotPay, an online robot that has successfully challenged more than 160,000 parking tickets for drivers in London and New York City. Following the ... “Automation can be helpful, but it can also be incredibly flawed. A lot of our ... and more » |
The Maya population in Guatemala suffered the most during the nation's 30-year civil war, which ended in 1996. Francisco and Lucia traveled to Colorado in the 80s after life became inhospitable in their native country. "What happened is a bit sad,” Fransisco says in this short documentary, Our Heart Within Us. “Discrimination and racism have greatly affected the people, especially the native peoples." Through farming plants indigenous to Guatemala, however, they are able to keep a piece of their ancestral home, despite being in the United States.
This film comes to us from the world-traveling web series The Perennial Plate. To learn more about this series, visit its Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter pages.
muslim world posted a photo:
Antalya, Turquie 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Antalya, Turquie 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Antalya, Turquie 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Antalya, Turquie 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Antalya, Turquie 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Antalya, Turquie 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Antalya, Turquie 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Antalya, Turquie 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Antalya, Turquie 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Antalya, Turquie 08/2016
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Read more: Green, Nature, Urban Planning, Population, Bible, Environment, Ecology, Green News
The Port of Shanghai is the world's busiest container port, handling more than 35 million TEUs (approximately 776 million tons) of cargo every year. That weight is roughly equal to 1.7 times the mass of all humans living on the planet.
30°37′35″N 122°03′53″E
It's a ritual that pops up every Olympic Games, winners on the podium taking a little bite out of their newly-won medals. While the idea of biting metals to test for purity is an old concept, these poses are purely celebratory—with winners often urged into position by photographers. Below, a collection of some of this year's Olympic athletes in Rio making their medals appear simply delicious.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
NPR's Rachel Martin speaks with economics professor Alan Krueger of Princeton University about how people participate in the gig economy — particularly as Uber drivers — to supplement their incomes.
Zeinab al-Ashry founded the popular Facebook group, "Confessions of a Married Woman." University of California Riverside professor Sherine Hafez talks to Rachel Martin about an online trend in Egypt.
muslim world posted a photo:
08/2016
Vincenzo Coronelli Scientist of the Day
Vincenzo Coronelli, an Italian map-maker, was born Aug. 15 or 16, 1650.
WIRED | 5 Great Podcasts to Listen to While Watching the Olympics WIRED His letter was read online over 200,000 times. (For perspective, there are 800,000 Mennonites in North America.) ... But Steve Dickerson, founder of SoftWear Automation (get it?), made the case that robotics could bring clothing manufacturing back to ... |
Space is “vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big,” as the author Douglas Adams put it, and those gargantuan dimensions present a colossal roadblock in the search for alien life beyond Earth. Even if our own Milky Way galaxy is currently teeming with extraterrestrial beings, their worlds could be scattered thousands of light years distant from each other, passing blindly like cosmic ships in the night.
But what if the key obstacle to detecting alien pen pals is not spatial, but rather temporal? That's one of the questions posed by a forthcoming paper in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics.
Led by astrophysicist and professor Avi Loeb, who chairs the department of astronomy at Harvard University, the paper charts out the probability of life's emergence from the birth of the first stars 30 million years after the Big Bang to the death of the last stars trillions of years into the future. Loeb's team focused on “life as we know it,” meaning terrestrial organisms on a rocky planet with liquid water, within the habitable zone of its star.
The results suggested that low-mass red dwarf stars are the most likely candidates for hosting habitable planets, thanks to their extreme longevity. These slow burners are only about ten percent as massive as yellow dwarfs like the Sun, but they outlive Sunlike stars thousands of times over.
Red dwarfs may also have some major setbacks, including a propensity for wildness in their youth. Flares emitted by adolescent red dwarfs may singe and sterilize the atmospheres of their surrounding planets, rendering life impossible. Though a recent study demonstrated that some planets within the habitable zones of red dwarfs do have compact atmospheres, similar to Earth, Mars, or Venus, the jury is still out on whether life can exist on these worlds.
But supposing red dwarfs could host life, it stands to reason that the long, stable, adult lifespans of red dwarf systems would amplify opportunity for fledgling ecosystems to bloom. “Our conclusion is that if low-mass stars can support life, then life is much more likely in the future,” Loeb told me. “Since [low-mass stars] live so much longer, they are providing heat to keep a planet warm for longer.”
Indeed, Loeb's team found that life would be about one thousand times more likely to arise in the distant future by calculating the probability of habitable, Earthlike planets forming over trillions of years.
Concept art of TRAPPIST-1, a red dwarf system with planets in the habitable zone. Image: ESO/M. Kornmesser/N. Risinger
The scenario casts Earthlings as early bloomers, prematurely born long before the universe's most fertile life-bearing years. Perhaps this is one possible explanation for the classic Fermi paradox: Have we struck out in our attempts to detect alien intelligence simply because we are the first example of it to show up to the cosmic party?
“It might be morning in the cosmos, to quote Reagan,” Seth Shostak, senior astronomer and director of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute, told me. “There's going to be a lot more life to come.”
“But there's no reason for any of that to imply that there is a lack of habitation today,” he added.
Indeed, we may be one of several precocious civilizations strewn across the cosmos. But Loeb's team is not alone in speculating that the real heydey of life in the universe lies billions or trillions of years ahead.
Another recent study led by Pratika Dayal, an astrophysicist based at the University of Groningen, came to a similar conclusion by delving into the role that radiation from sources like supernovae and gamma ray bursts have played in habitability over the course of the last 13 billion years.
Her team's models show that decreasing radiation may have resulted in a universe that is 20 times more liveable today than it was four billion years ago, when life first appeared on Earth. The study also projected that our cosmic surroundings will continue to evolve into a more nurturing environment for life in the future.
“People have been taking such different approaches,” Dayal told me. “The paper that Avi [Loeb] wrote takes a different approach to what we're doing, but then all of us are, more or less, coming up with the same answers. It is encouraging because it shows we're on the right track.”
Of course, all of this research will remain inherently speculative until we have built up more observational evidence of the universe's habitability over time, and more robust simulations to interpret that evidence.
“Even the best simulations aren't good enough to study habitability of the universe on an extremely large scale,” Dayal said. “We're just trying to think of clever ways to get around the problem.”
“We should be agnostic until we go and search,” Loeb said.
Still, it's intriguing to ruminate on the implications of humans being the first, or among the first, intelligent life forms to emerge in the cosmos. Let's say we are, for kicks. Does that change how we view ourselves and our place in the universe? Are we elder brothers and sisters to societies that will emerge around stars that have yet to be born? In addition to trying to bridge communication gaps in deep space, should we also reach out across deep time, to the wealth of extraterrestrial beings that are projected to develop billions of years after our Sun dies?
We look for alien life in the stars because we want to learn from other intelligent civilizations, but we may be most valuable as teachers. Even if these speculative future lifeforms are advanced relative to humans, they might welcome information about our perspective on the universe. Imagine what a boon it would be for Earthlings to receive this kind of message-in-a-bottle from a bygone alien society, regardless of whether it was technologically superior to us.
Of course, it's possible that we already are receiving posthumous letters from aliens, but have no way to identify them. “This is one of the key outstanding questions: When you say you look for life in the universe, what do you mean?” Dayal said.
“From the astrophysical perspective, we are basically talking about Earthlike life. But what if it's different? Would you even be able to recognize it? How do we know there's not some form of life trying to communicate with us and we don't know?”
“It's quite possible that there are other forms of life, and that nature has more imagination than we do,” Loeb told me. “We just have one example.”
This is an important limitation to keep in mind for ourselves as well. The only thing more excruciating than the thought of alien attempts at contact falling on deaf ears on Earth is the opposite scenario, in which human messages reach civilizations that can't interpret them. Transcending this problem will be essential to securing even one link in a chain of cognitively sophisticated beings across time and space.
"It's quite possible that such forms of life spread throughout the galaxy, and are mostly in places we don't suspect."
“I bet you'd get a lot of people weighing in on how to communicate with critters that might spring up five, ten, or 100 billion years from now,” Shostak said. “It's a tough problem.”
There are some basic roadmaps for solving it, though each is contingent on major technological breakthroughs. We could, for instance, develop interstellar spaceflight in order to disperse ourselves more widely across the stars. It's a lot easier said than done, but theoretically, it would up the odds of humans sticking around long enough to interact directly with the more populous universe of the future.
“If you are an intelligent form of life like we are—a technological civilization—then everything changes because you are not restricted to live next to a star,” Loeb said. “In principle, such a civilization, if it's very advanced, could move away from the star that hosted it in the beginning.”
“It's quite possible that such forms of life spread throughout the galaxy, and are mostly in places we don't suspect,” he continued. “There might be a lot of spacecraft moving through the galaxy that are not particularly visible to us because they are small. If you imagine a civilization that is hundreds of millions of years old in terms of its technology, the sky's the limit in terms of how widely it would be able to spread.”
Humans may one day develop the capabilities necessary to become this type of star-hopping civilization. Projects like Breakthrough Starshot, which aims to send a fleet of tiny spaceships to the nearest star system, Alpha Centauri, are hoping to pave the way for this achievement.
“Our civilization will have to move somewhere [to survive long-term],” Loeb said. “The nearest example is Proxima Centauri, so we might consider traveling there.”
It's difficult to predict if and when these efforts will come to fruition, and we may ultimately have to submit to our primitive planetary life and its star-exploding expiration date. If so, our plan B for contacting future life could be launching our own epitaphs in the form of robotic spacecraft or radio messages to civilizations that don't exist yet. It would be a shot in the dark, and we'd never know whether we'd succeeded. But it would be a small step towards the connection we so clearly crave from other living denizens of the cosmos.
For now, it's a fun thought experiment. However, if evidence continues to accumulate suggesting that we live in an era of biological sparseness relative to an abundance of future civilizations, it could reorient our attitude to our place in the universe, and our approach to the other creatures—past, present, and future—with whom we share it.
London Less Travelled posted a photo:
muslim world posted a photo:
Vienne Autriche 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Vienne Autriche 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Vienne Autriche 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Vienne Autriche 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Vienne Autriche 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Vienne Autriche 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Vienne Autriche 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Vienne Autriche 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Vienne Autriche 08/2016
Performance-Enhancing Spaghetti with Tomatoes and Lentils
Combining whole grain pasta and quick-cooking lentils, this pasta dish gets top marks for speed, flavor, power nutrient delivery and digestibility.
8 ounces whole grain spaghetti
2 tablespoons olive oil
1 onion, finely chopped
2 cloves garlic, minced
pinch red pepper flakes
1 pint grape tomatoes, halved
1 cup lentils, cooked (preferably beluga black lentils or French green lentils, which keep their shape after cooking)
1 handful basil leaves (about 1 cup), chopped
2 cups arugula leaves, coarsely chopped
sea salt and freshly ground pepper to taste
In a large skillet, heat olive oil over medium-high heat. When the oil starts to shimmer, add the chopped onion, garlic and red pepper flakes. Cook, stirring, occasionally, for about 3 minutes, just until the onion starts to soften.
Meanwhile, bring a large pot of water to boil over high heat. When it reaches a rolling boil, add the whole grain spaghetti. Cook spaghetti according to package directions.
Add the halved grape tomatoes to the sauteed onions. Stir to coat the tomatoes in the oil and continue cooking, so tomatoes soften. This should take about 8 minutes, about the length of time it will take for the pasta to become al dente. Stir the lentils in with the tomatoes.
Drain the pasta, reserving 1 cup of the pasta cooking water. Return the pasta to the pot. Add the tomatoes and lentils and pasta water. It has a beautiful starchiness, which, combined with the pasta, tomatoes and lentils, thickens into a spaghetti-hugging sauce. Stir well together.
Add the chopped basil and arugula by the handful, combining just until the greens wilt. Season generously with sea salt and freshly ground pepper. Enjoy at once.
Serves 4.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
muslim world posted a photo:
Vienne Autriche 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Vienne Autriche 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Vienne Autriche 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Vienne Autriche 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Vienne Autriche 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Vienne Autriche 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Vienne Autriche 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Vienne Autriche 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Vienne Autriche 08/2016
muslim world posted a photo:
Vienne Autriche 08/2016
Scottish Police have been forced to turn to the Catholic Church after a family in South Lanarkshire were apparently subjected to a campaign of terror by a Chihuahua-levitating poltergeist.…
Arun Khetia posted a photo:
Beautiful male sumatran tiger at Chessington zoo in London. An endangered species with only around 300 left in the wild, this smallest of the tiger species is found in game reserves on the Indonesian island of Sumatra.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Mindfulness classes in Westminster, schoolchildren meditating in lessons, grown adults poring over ‘zen' colouring books, mindfulness-based therapies adopted by the NHS, meditation in the workplace… there's no escaping the mindfulness phenomenon.
And with the launch of Balance (London's new free magazine focused on mindfulness and wellbeing) and continued success of meditation apps like Headspace with its five-million strong membership, its popularity is showing no signs of dwindling.
Yet a surprising number of people still assume mindfulness has something to do with sitting on a rock in yoga pants chanting ‘ohm'.
True: its methods are derived from ancient Asian contemplative practices, particularly Buddhist meditation. But mindfulness is a secular concept and one backed by a growing body of promising scientific research.
Studies have suggested that mindfulness can help with everything from depression, anxiety, stress and self-esteem to chronic pain, relationship difficulties, creativity and productivity.
Of course, it is not some magical elixir that is going to cure all the world's ills overnight and there is no evidence to suggest mindfulness is right for everyone; research is still in its infancy.
As founder of the Oxford Mindfulness Centre Professor Mark Williams points out: "Mindfulness isn't the answer to everything, and it's important that our enthusiasm doesn't run ahead of the evidence.”
But those with an aversion to phrases and words such as ‘self-help', ‘spirituality' and ‘finding inner peace', could be missing out on something hugely beneficial to their wellbeing if they write it off as some kind of New Age mumbo jumbo.
Statistics show men are far less likely to seek help for mental health problems than women and less likely to discuss or confront their emotions. This coupled with the latest statistics on male suicide (the biggest killer of men under the age of 45), suggest the male population in particular could be missing out on the potentially transformative powers of mindfulness.
With that in mind, we've put together an introduction to mindfulness and some of the potential benefits that could have a particular relevance to men.
Put simply, mindfulness is the awareness that arises when you deliberately pay attention to what is happening in the present moment, both externally and in your mind and body, without casting judgement.
Inspired by ancient Asian practices, John Kabat-Zinn began teaching his secular Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction course (MBSR) to patients at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center in the late 1970s. Its aim was to help patients manage chronic pain and its associated stresses, with a range of mindfulness meditation techniques.
Professor Mark Williams, Zindel Segal and John Teasdale adapted the course in the 90s, combining MBSR methods with elements of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy to develop Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), which helps patients prone to depression by building resilience.
Mindfulness can be practised formally, through meditation, or informally by incorporating present moment awareness into everyday life such as when walking, having a conversation or even brushing your teeth. A typical sitting meditation would involve sitting upright in a chair with feet firmly on the ground while focusing on the movement of the breath in and out of the body, allowing thoughts to come and go and returning to the breath the moment mind wandering is noted.
Just as you wouldn't expect to emerge from a few sessions at the gym with the body of an elite athlete, you can't expect to materialise from a week of meditation practice with all the calm and equanimity of the Dalai Lama.
Also, mindfulness is not about striving for an end goal or achieving some higher state of consciousness. In fact, it's only when you stop seeking an answer, and learn to accept each moment as it is, that the real changes can begin to occur.
Reports from practitioners include a greater clarity of mind, an ability to react to situations with a calmer and more reasoned approach, a compassionate and less-judgmental attitude towards others and oneself, and a greater sense of contentment.
From confidence and creativity to productivity and performance in the workplace, there are myriad ways mindfulness could be beneficial but here are just a few which could be of particular relevance to men:
Depression: Depression is a very real issue for British men: the latest figures show that male suicide accounted for 76% of all suicides in the UK (2014).
A recent meta-analysis of MBCT found that mindfulness is an effective treatment option that can help prevent the recurrence of major depression. Across nine trials, taking the time to relapse into account, people who received MBCT were 31% less likely to relapse within 60-weeks compared with those who did not receive MBCT.
The latest research, which looked at people with suicidal tendencies, also found that after an MBCT course, there was an uncoupling from suicidal thought, and that even if a patient felt depressed after the course, it didn't trigger suicidal thoughts. MBCT founder Professor Williams revealed these findings in an interview for The Mindful Summit in 2015.
Stress: Our fast-paced existence is stressful for both men and women. But stress can have a unique impact on men. An Australian study discovered men tend to respond to stress more aggressively than women, adopting a “fight-or-flight” reaction in comparison to the “tend-and-befriend” response in women.
Research using MRI scans has shown that after an eight-week course of mindfulness practice, the amygdala (the ‘fight or flight' centre of the brain, associated with fear and emotion) appears to shrink. At the same time, the pre-frontal cortex, linked to awareness, concentration and decision-making, appears to grow, showing mindfulness can have an impact on the physiology of the brain.
The result? Men could spend less time in the ‘fight or flight' part of the nervous system and more time with the ‘rest and digest' (a.k.a. the parasympathetic system), which slows the heart rate and breath, and reduces blood pressure.
Relationships: Single men alert: women find mindfulness an attractive trait in men, according to research. The study, conducted by a team of Australian scientists, analysed a speed-dating experiment in which participants were asked to rate how physically attractive each person was before meeting them. Before the dating began, participants completed a questionnaire designed to measure mindfulness. The findings revealed that women much preferred the more ‘mindful' men.
Robotics Online (press release) | Marlin Makes Largest Factory Automation Investment Since 2014 Robotics Online (press release) "To stay on top, American manufacturers need to have the best people, the best processes, and the best tools. We're investing in our team and our tools so we can deliver better wire baskets and rack products faster. This is how American companies like ... |
E Y Mao posted a photo:
Insurers have released the latest lists of prescription drugs they won't cover in 2017. Express Scripts is excluding 85 drugs and CVS Caremark, 131. Some drugs for diabetes and asthma are out.
JH Images.co.uk posted a photo:
The view here is looking east towards the city of London you can see that the sun set behind the skyscrapers straight down the middle of the frame. the colors that the sunset produced were amazing and i was glad that this visit worked out for me.
venesha83 posted a photo:
Davide D'Amico posted a photo:
Full Text:
More than 13 million pain-blocking epidural procedures are performed every year in the United States. Although epidurals are generally regarded as safe, there are complications in up to 10 percent of cases, in which the needles are inserted too far or placed in the wrong tissue. Researchers designed and tested several types of optical sensors that could be placed at the tip of an epidural needle and determined that the best is one that relies on Raman spectroscopy. This technique, which uses light to measure energy shifts in molecular vibrations, offers detailed information about the chemical composition of tissue.
Image credit: MIT
Full Text:
Bioluminescence is a complex chemical reaction within a cell that releases energy in the form of light. Researchers theorize that this illumination is a form of intra-species and inter-species communication. This natural light show can be seen in a wide variety of marine organisms such as the crystal jellyfish (Aequorea aequorea) pictured here.
Image credit: Dr. Osamu Shimomura, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass
Can Singapore's labour crunch spark a robot revolution? Daily Mail To address the constraints, Singapore is pushing businesses to look to non-human solutions for their human resource challenges, including greater use of automation and robotics. At Chilli Padi Nonya Cafe near a leafy university enclave, a tray-wielding ... and more » |
Davide D'Amico posted a photo:
In June, the US Air Force had to call on an apiarist for help after more than 20,000 bees swarmed at the exhaust of an F-22 Raptor.…
Robotics Online (press release) | Marlin Makes Largest Factory Automation Investment Since 2014 Robotics Online (press release) "To stay on top, American manufacturers need to have the best people, the best processes, and the best tools. We're investing in our team and our tools so we can deliver better wire baskets and rack products faster. This is how American companies like ... |
Hollywood Reporter | Fox Sports Exec Likens His Network to Fox News (Seriously, He Does) Hollywood Reporter I'm bearish on the future of news and highlights shows. If there ... Rami Malek [the star of Mr. Robot] was asked [in THR] how he wants to be coached by directors. And he ... Have your league partners expressed anger with what your opinion hosts have said? |
Malay Mail Online | Can Singapore's labour crunch spark a robot revolution? Malay Mail Online Singapore is pushing businesses to look to non-human solutions for their human resource challenges, including greater use of automation and robotics. — Reuters picSINGAPORE, Aug 15 — Sherine Toh says her best days at work are when none of the ... and more » |
“The universe is more than 13 billion years old. That means that even if there have been a thousand civilizations in our own galaxy, if they live only as long as we have been around—roughly ten thousand years—then all of them are likely already extinct," said Woodruff Sullivan of the University of Washington about findings based on recent Kepler Mission data. "And others won't evolve until we are long gone. For us to have much chance of success in finding another "contemporary" active technological civilization, on average they must last much longer than our present lifetime.”
Are humans unique and alone in the vast universe? This question--summed up in the famous Drake equation--has for a half-century been one of the most intractable and uncertain in science. But new research shows that the recent discoveries of exoplanets combined with a broader approach to the question makes it possible to assign a new empirically valid probability to whether any other advanced technological civilizations have ever existed.
And it shows that unless the odds of advanced life evolving on a habitable planet are astonishingly low, then human kind is not the universe's first technological, or advanced, civilization.
The paper, published in NASA's Astrobiology, also shows for the first time just what “pessimism” or “optimism” mean when it comes to estimating the likelihood of advanced extraterrestrial life.
“The question of whether advanced civilizations exist elsewhere in the universe has always been vexed with three large uncertainties in the Drake equation,” said Adam Frank, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Rochester and co-author of the paper. “We've known for a long time approximately how many stars exist. We didn't know how many of those stars had planets that could potentially harbor life, how often life might evolve and lead to intelligent beings, and how long any civilizations might last before becoming extinct.”
“Thanks to NASA's Kepler satellite and other searches, we now know that roughly one-fifth of stars have planets in “habitable zones,” where temperatures could support life as we know it. So one of the three big uncertainties has now been constrained.”
Frank said that the third big question--how long civilizations might survive--is still completely unknown. “The fact that humans have had rudimentary technology for roughly ten thousand years doesn't really tell us if other societies would last that long or perhaps much longer,” he explained.
But Frank and his coauthor, Woodruff Sullivan of the astronomy department and astrobiology program at the University of Washington, found they could eliminate that term altogether by simply expanding the question.
“Rather than asking how many civilizations may exist now, we ask ‘Are we the only technological species that has ever arisen?" said Sullivan. “This shifted focus eliminates the uncertainty of the civilization lifetime question and allows us to address what we call the ‘cosmic archaeological question'—how often in the history of the universe has life evolved to an advanced state?”
That still leaves huge uncertainties in calculating the probability for advanced life to evolve on habitable planets. It's here that Frank and Sullivan flip the question around. Rather than guessing at the odds of advanced life developing, they calculate the odds against it occurring in order for humanity to be the only advanced civilization in the entire history of the observable universe. With that, Frank and Sullivan then calculated the line between a Universe where humanity has been the sole experiment in civilization and one where others have come before us.
“Of course, we have no idea how likely it is that an intelligent technological species will evolve on a given habitable planet,” says Frank. But using our method we can tell exactly how low that probability would have to be for us to be the ONLY civilization the Universe has produced. We call that the pessimism line. If the actual probability is greater than the pessimism line, then a technological species and civilization has likely happened before.”
Using this approach, Frank and Sullivan calculate how unlikely advanced life must be if there has never been another example among the universe's ten billion trillion stars, or even among our own Milky Way galaxy's hundred billion.
6a00d8341bf7f753ef01bb08ef415f970d-800wi
The result? By applying the new exoplanet data to the universe's 2 x 10 to the 22nd power stars, Frank and Sullivan find that human civilization is likely to be unique in the cosmos only if the odds of a civilization developing on a habitable planet are less than about one in 10 billion trillion, or one part in 10 to the 22th power.
“One in 10 billion trillion is incredibly small,” says Frank. “To me, this implies that other intelligent, technology producing species very likely have evolved before us. Think of it this way. Before our result you'd be considered a pessimist if you imagined the probability of evolving a civilization on a habitable planet were, say, one in a trillion. But even that guess, one chance in a trillion, implies that what has happened here on Earth with humanity has in fact happened about a 10 billion other times over cosmic history!”
For smaller volumes the numbers are less extreme. For example, another technological species likely has evolved on a habitable planet in our own Milky Way galaxy if the odds against it evolving on any one habitable planet are better than one chance in 60 billion.
But if those numbers seem to give ammunition to the “optimists” about the existence of alien civilizations, Sullivan points out that the full Drake equation—which calculates the odds that other civilizations are around today—may give solace to the pessimists.
In 1961, astrophysicist Frank Drake developed an equation to estimate the number of advanced civilizations likely to exist in the Milky Way galaxy. The Drake equation (top row) has proven to be a durable framework for research, and space technology has advanced scientists' knowledge of several variables. But it is impossible to do anything more than guess at variables such as L, the probably longevity of other advanced civilizations.
In new research, Adam Frank and Woodruff Sullivan offer a new equation (bottom row) to address a slightly different question: What is the number of advanced civilizations likely to have developed over the history of the observable universe? Frank and Sullivan's equation draws on Drake's, but eliminates the need for L.
Their argument hinges upon the recent discovery of how many planets exist and how many of those lie in what scientists call the “habitable zone” planets in which liquid water, and therefore life, could exist. This allows Frank and Sullivan to define a number they call Nast. Nast is the product of N*, the total number of stars; fp, the fraction of those stars that form planets; and np, the average number of those planets in the habitable zones of their stars.
They then set out what they call the “Archaelogical-form” of the Drake equation, which defines A as the “number of technological species that have ever formed over the history of the observable Universe.”
Their equation, A=Nast*fbt, describes A as the product of Nast the number of habitable planets in a given volume of the Universe multiplied by fbt the likelihood of a technological species arising on one of these planets. The volume considered could be, for example, the entire Universe, or just our Galaxy.
“Given the vast distances between stars and the fixed speed of light we might never really be able to have a conversation with another civilization anyway,” said Frank. “If they were 20,000 light years away then every exchange would take 40,000 years to go back and forth.”
But, as Frank and Sullivan point out, even if there aren't other civilizations in our galaxy to communicate with now, the new result still has a profound scientific and philosophical importance. “From a fundamental perspective the question is ‘has it ever happened anywhere before?'” said Frank. Our result is the first time anyone has been able to set any empirical answer for that question and it is astonishingly likely that we are not the only time and place that an advance civilization has evolved.”
According to Frank and Sullivan their result has a practical application as well. As humanity faces its crisis in sustainability and climate change we can wonder if other civilization-building species on other planets have gone through a similar bottleneck and made it to the other side.
“We don't even know if it's possible to have a high-tech civilization that lasts more than a few centurie,” Frank concluded. With Frank and Sullivan's new result, scientists can begin using everything they know about planets and climate to begin modeling the interactions of an energy-intensive species with their home world knowing that a large sample of such cases has already existed in the cosmos.
“Our results imply that our evolution has not been unique and has probably happened many times before. The other cases are likely to include many energy intensive civilizations dealing with their feedbacks onto their planets as their civilizations grow. That means we can begin exploring the problem using simulations to get a sense of what leads to long lived civilizations and what doesn't.”
The Daily Galaxy via University of Rochester
Image credits: top of page with thanks to Muitosabao and ESO Alma Observatory
352
Before Sunrise (1995)
Hopping off a train in Vienna, American Ethan Hawke and Parisian Julie Delpy spend a night-time wondering whether they were made for each other. Along with Before Sunset and Before Midnight, this is part of that rarest of things the perfect movie trilogy.
Related: Sign up to our Bookmarks newsletter
Continue reading...Jan Willem van Welzenis, 2016
Oil on linen 15” x 12” / 40 x 30 cm
made out of holographic mylar and monofilament, the large-scale public sculpture spans 15,000 square feet overhead.
The post patrick shearn's liquid shard glistens above LA's pershing square appeared first on designboom | architecture & design magazine.
I've not said that I will make George Orwell look ragged or scruffy in the statue I am making of him to go outside the BBC (Letters, 11 August). I suggested he wore potting-shed clothes. In the mid 20th century, an employed gardener might habitually have worked in a tweed jacket, a tie, baggy trousers and a comfortable pullover. So he'd have dressed much like his master except with a little less crease in his trousers and a blunter edge to his lapel. This is just how Orwell looks in all the photos and it's how I aim to represent him.
Martin Jennings
Witney, Oxfordshire
• Join the debate email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
Continue reading...the assemblage of scenery combines familiar sites of interest to form fictional places of exploration.
The post caterina rossato forms fictional landscapes from cut paper postcards appeared first on designboom | architecture & design magazine.
For the edgy 21st-century arts curator, mad for site-specific installations, Liverpool is inordinately blessed with remarkable locations. A 19th-century oratory designed to resemble a Greek-Doric temple; a disused Victorian brewery beneath which there lies a lake some 40ft deep; a long abandoned art deco cinema, its ruby interior frozen in time as if its patrons, dressed in their Saturday best, might return at any moment: these are just a few of the city's more extraordinary buildings, beautiful and mournful in almost equal measure. And also, more to the point, empty and available. But therein lies the catch, of course. If art is not to be upstaged by architecture, the work must either be truly extraordinary, or so powerfully bound to its site that the two can hardly be separated.
At my feet swirled little piles of litter: plastic bottles and cigarette butts, receipts and ringpulls
It's grotesquery for grotesquery's sale, The League of Gentlemen minus the wit
Continue reading...Can Singapore's labour crunch spark a robot revolution? Daily Mail To address the constraints, Singapore is pushing businesses to look to non-human solutions for their human resource challenges, including greater use of automation and robotics. At Chilli Padi Nonya Cafe near a leafy university enclave, a tray-wielding ... and more » |
After peaking in 2012 and 2014 the current sunspot cycle has gone into decline, and should reach a minimum around 2020
It is time for Starwatch to check once again on the star we know best, our Sun, and its current level of sunspot activity. I have warned repeatedly, though, about the dangers of solar observation. To look directly at the Sun through an unprotected telescope or binoculars is to guarantee serious eye damage.
Related: Spacewatch: Solar maximum
Continue reading...Stuff.co.nz | Evicted? Got a parking ticket? Who you gonna call? Chatbot lawyer DoNotPay can help Stuff.co.nz He's the creator of DoNotPay, an online robot that has successfully challenged more than 160,000 parking tickets for drivers in London and New York City. Following the ... "Automation can be helpful, but it can also be incredibly flawed. A lot of our ... and more » |
oldskidmark posted a photo:
What a sunset effect!
venesha83 posted a photo:
rodwey2004 posted a photo:
Keepsaix posted a photo:
A birds eye view of the wonderful City of London.
This pictures is taken during my recent photography trip to London. I just brought with me one lens and a camera. It worked really well. No distractions. It just me the camera and the beautiful place to explore and photograph.
John Steedman posted a photo:
A futurologist has made a series of startling predictions about life in 34 years' time. But how far can we trust his forecast?
Name: The year 2050.
Age: -34.
Continue reading...With carriages full of unhappy travellers who have paid to be incarcerated, it's no wonder talk of nationalisation has spread beyond duffel coat-wearing socialists
Last week Southern Rail staff went on strike, leaving thousands of commuters facing a slightly improved service. Southern's non-stop calamities this summer have added support to the idea of renationalisation. This debate is something I watched with great interest. I'm a standup comedian who can't drive. I have never learned. I don't trust my hand-eye coordination. You're looking at someone who once dropped a cricket ball on to his own head during a routine catching practice; I don't think it's a great idea to have me in control of a high-speed metal death robot.
So I rely on the train system in this country. And I can tell you from firsthand experience that our train system is a mess. Carriages are full of unhappy travellers packed together like sardines, who have inexplicably paid for the privilege of being incarcerated. Periodically, everyone has to flee for cover, either by lying across the laps of the passengers lucky enough to have a seat, or by climbing into the luggage racks on the ceiling to allow the optimistically named “buffet” cart to pass through just in case anyone wants to spend £50 on a packet of crisps or a single fruit pastille.
Continue reading...Waterford_Man posted a photo:
Thanks for all the views, Please check out my other photos and albums.
Waterford_Man posted a photo:
Thanks for all the views, Please check out my other photos and albums.
Hollywood Reporter | Fox Sports Exec Likens His Network to Fox News (Seriously, He Does) Hollywood Reporter I'm bearish on the future of news and highlights shows. If there ... Rami Malek [the star of Mr. Robot] was asked [in THR] how he wants to be coached by directors. And he ... Have your league partners expressed anger with what your opinion hosts have said? |
Sunday's edition of the New York Times Magazine featured a story about a fight over the brain of a patient who, in his life, had been a keystone of memory science. It was an excerpt from Patient H.M., a book about the man who lost his memory after a lobotomy, written by the grandson of the neurosurgeon who performed the operation.
And then the letters started coming in. At issue (in part) was an exchange between author Luke Dittrich and a Massachusetts Institute of Technology neuroscientist named Suzanne Corkin, who died in May. Corkin had conducted decades' worth of experiments on H.M.—Henry Molaison—and Dittrich wanted to know what would happen to all her files:
Suzanne Corkin: Shredded.
Me: Shredded? Why would they be shredded?
Corkin: Nobody's gonna look at them.
One of the letters to the Times was from James DiCarlo, the head of the department of brain and cognitive sciences at MIT. He and his colleagues contend, among other things, that the records had not been destroyed and in fact are currently housed at MIT. “Journalists are absolutely correct to hold scientists to very high standards,” DiCarlo's letter concludes, “I—and over 200 scientists who have signed a letter to the editor in support of Professor Corkin—believe she more than achieved those high standards. However, the author (and, implicitly, the Times) has failed to do so.”
But the New York Times Magazine did fact-check the book excerpt itself, Danielle Rhoades Ha, the paper's vice president of communications, told me. It fact-checks everything, down to poems, according to Robert Liguori, a research editor at the magazine and a fact checker who has worked on books.
Part of the fallout is surely attributable to the collision here between two standards of evidence: scientific and journalistic. Even in the hands of a rigorous reporter, the latter standard is baggier by necessity—nothing would get published if every story were vetted like a peer-reviewed research study—and can sometimes involve taking a source at his or her word about what happened, as Dittrich seems to have here. To this unavoidable problem, the conventions of journalism and nonfiction publishing in general contribute a further complication—there is rarely any transparency about the fact-checking process and certainly no way of knowing if publishers hold their books to consistent standards.
When I tried to find out if Dittrich's book had been fact-checked, the assistant director of publicity at Random House said he couldn't tell me. When I reached out to Dittrich himself, I got a reply back from Random House PR again: “We do not discuss the editing process of our books.” The representative agreed to send me the acknowledgments section, which does describe a vetting process: The writer shared drafts with family members involved in the story and “two eagle-eyed and sharp-brained neuroscientists” who read the whole manuscript.* But if anyone who helped on the book was a fact checker vetting its journalistic accuracy, Dittrich didn't specify as much.
People are often surprised to learn that books, those bulky, fact-rich forever things, frequently receive less scrutiny from an independent fact checker than the stories they skim in magazines before tossing them in the recycling bin. In an ideal world, those books would be vetted in a rigorous and standardized way. “It's impossible to write 50, 60, 70,000 words and not screw up somewhere,” said Ligouri.
I know well, from spending more than two years as a freelance fact checker for many national science publications, that errors are terrifically common in nonfiction. When I started fact-checking as an intern at a magazine, I was surprised to find mistakes of all kinds in the work of authors I'd long admired—misspellings of proper nouns, botched descriptions of experiments, badly turned metaphors for, say, how the brain processes information or how the solar system formed. In the end, everything comes back to primary sources. One of my favorite catches: Once, an author noted that if you were to slice off someone's head, blood would shoot up out of the hole—a gruesome illustration of how powerfully the body's arteries pump blood. I called a forensic expert, who pointed me to videos of beheadings. There was no spurting blood.
All this work costs money—and publishers rarely foot the bill. In a highly unscientific Twitter survey, I asked authors of science books to tell me if their publishers had paid for an independent fact checker. Just four out of 38 respondents said they had.
Ligouri offered me his own theory about why publishers aren't springing for fact checkers: If a text has embarrassing or fatal errors, the onus is put on the author. “Does anybody besides anyone in publishing remember who published those books?”
I've long wished that fact-checked material would carry some kind of stamp on it noting if it had been independently and thoroughly fact-checked. (Internet articles included—this one wasn't.) It would be particularly useful for books, the paper copies of which are impossible to change even when errors are inevitably caught or a new angle to the story emerges.
I'm not the only one. “Maybe there should be a warning,” journalist Mac McClelland has said of books that haven't been checked, “like on a pack of cigarettes.”
And if material has been fact-checked, I'd like to see the checker get a credit, the way that writers, photographers, and increasingly story editors do. They are just as integral to the process of getting the story on the page. Though I've been listed on the masthead of one magazine as a researcher, the vast majority of my fact-checking gigs didn't provide me with a formal credit—even though I showed stories that I checked the same care and diligence I would have if my name had been plastered at the top.
Sometimes writers, with their reputations very much on the line, will hire their own checkers—five respondents to my survey said they had. That was what science journalist and veteran fact checker Brooke Borel did for her forthcoming book The Chicago Guide to Fact Checking, which, I suppose, given the subject matter, isn't terribly surprising. (Full disclosure: I've fact-checked magazine pieces by Borel and consider her a friend. She also interviewed me for her fact-checking guide.) But for her previous book, about the rise of bedbugs, Borel, like many authors, could not afford a fact checker and did the checking herself. That's not ideal, Borel notes. It's hard to get out of your own head and spot your own mistakes, especially when you are invested in the story sticking together. I'd imagine it's doubly hard for a book like Dittrich's, in which the subject matter at times involved his own family.
And when her bedbug book was excerpted by various publications, no one asked Borel for backup materials. While some publications, like the New York Times Magazine, have a policy of fact-checking excerpts, in my experience that doesn't always happen with the same rigor as with other articles. When I've worked on excerpts in the past, I've turned up errors just as surely I would in most features handed to me. More proof that the fact-checking process is opaque: I asked a couple research chiefs about their magazines' policies for excerpts. With the exception of the Times, they declined to comment on record.
Still, fact checking isn't a bomb-proof way to ferret out the truth. As Daniel Engber wrote in Slate, on the subject of Jonah Lehrer's new book, which did get a fact-checking treatment, “Fact-checked, straight-laced science journalism may also fail to catch distortions of the evidence, if those distortions come from researchers themselves.”
Indeed, Dittrich wrote in a response on Medium: “My reporting of the shredding was based entirely on [the researcher's] own words, to me, on tape.” He even uploaded a recording of the conversation. If many books' budgets do not carve out money for fact checkers, they certainly wouldn't include any for a full-scale investigation into locating a pile of notebook shreddings. It might've been a good move to call MIT and ask about the status of the records, especially since Dittrich says that he had a contentious relationship with Corkin. (Whether I would have done this personally—or if the researchers at the Times did this—I can't say. I get to speak with the hindsight of knowing that the claim is being hotly and publicly contested.)
In this case, Dittrich said that he's actively hopeful he's not correct. He wrote on Medium, “I hope the data has in fact survived, as that strikes me as the best possible outcome.” For everyone except maybe the fact checkers.
Correction, Aug. 12, 2016: Due to an editing error, this story originally misstated the source who sent the writer the acknowledgments section of Luke Dittrich's book. It was the assistant director of publicity at Random House, not Dittrich. (Return.)
A pleasant-looking young man begins to grind his hips to a basic R&B backbeat, as a buxom girl gazes out along a bridge and wrinkles her nose at the camera. The young man starts to sing, “It's somethin' about you, girl … ”—and instantly one realizes something is horribly, delightfully wrong. His voice sounds like a sozzled toddler on a bungee cord. When a “harmony” comes in, it's just another, lower, equally wobbly vocal line that tangles around the first. The dancing becomes more and more lost-looking. The PG-13 lyrics are lisped and gulped into sonic oatmeal.
This is San Antonio's Daniel Mcloyd, aka IceJJFish, and the video is “On the Floor.” It was posted in February 2014. Today it is verging on 50 million views.
Debates go round and round on the YouTube comments thread and various subreddits over whether Mcloyd is kidding, “trolling” for clicks. There is no evidence he is anything but straight-up. Meanwhile, his own hometown alt-weekly, the San Antonio Current, worried IceJJFish was a signal of social deterioration, of “a time when someone can get just as famous, if not more so, with a confident and terrible voice as they can with a good voice.”
Over its 11-year tenure, YouTube has done its damnedest to corroborate that claim, from early viral hits such as Tay Zonday's “Chocolate Rain” and Reh Dogg's “Why Must I Cry?” through “your boy” Bangs and the mournful D4NNY. Then of course there is the Joan of Arc of inept YouTube singers, Rebecca Black. The then-13-year-old's 2011 Los Angeles vanity-studio production “Friday” has insinuated itself so deeply into people's musical cortices that it will be a must on wedding-reception playlists through at least the 2020s. Its irresistibility left us at sea: Had we embraced it for its gormless awfulness or for a kind of hidden pop greatness that made it somehow, well, gormful?
This is one of the opportunities that “bad” music can permit us: a mini-liberation from the usual bounds of taste. There is only listening, perhaps in an unusually pure form.
The risk is that we might be listening cruelly, in freak-show mode, staring down upon some deficiency. Is the performer “in” on the joke, sharing a parallel pleasure? Consider how many of the singers in that list of YouTube smash-flops are “foreigners” or people of color, or in Black's case a young girl. Evaluating singing is especially sensitive because the act is so vulnerable, issuing directly from the body, via the mysterious workings of breath, throat, and tongue. The singing in a real sense is the singer.
That said, any alarm that our current appetite for vocal destruction means our culture has become a uniquely degraded idiocracy cries out for a historical reality check. And this week it has come, in the form of the new film Florence Foster Jenkins, directed by Stephen Frears and starring Meryl Streep as the real-life New York heiress and arts patron who became known in the 1940s as the world's worst opera singer.
For decades, in private recitals, Jenkins charged at the repertoire's most challenging arias like a blind, braying, three-legged horse in a steeplechase, rarely clearing a musical hurdle. She was indulged and protected by her society friends. Then, in her 70s, she slipped up. She made supposedly private recordings of her singing at a studio-for-hire (the wartime equivalent of Rebecca Black's Ark Music Factory), and they began to circulate, including to local radio. Worse, she rented out Carnegie Hall to fulfill her dream of singing there. This time, no one could keep the public away, and they packed the rows to gawk and laugh.
Jenkins died soon after, arguably of her shattered illusions. But the legend of her high-spirited haplessness continued to grow via recordings, articles, books, stage plays, documentaries, and now this film (as well as a recent French movie more loosely based on her, Marguerite). Hers was a slow-motion version of viral notoriety, a Rebecca Black or IceJJFish for the analog age.
I first heard about her in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a time when fans of “underground” rock tended to fetishize past examples of “incredibly strange music” as precursors of the deliberately raw, discordant, and alienated sounds of post-punk and its kin—while no doubt engaging in some immature snickering, too. It's impossible to draw the line.
On college radio, Jenkins' scattershot rendition of Mozart's “Queen of the Night” aria might play alongside the “exotica” of “Peruvian princess” Yma Sumac and avant-garde jazz by Sun Ra's Arkestra. They'd be joined by the Shaggs, the home-schooled New Hampshire sisters whose father forced them to become a 1960s band. The trio's so-wrong-they're-right harmonies and shifting-sands timing on naïve compositions like “My Pal Foot Foot” or “Who Are Parents?” have astonished generations of musical safarists from Frank Zappa to Sonic Youth and beyond: It's just been announced that their 1968 album Philosophy of the World is getting a deluxe vinyl reissue on the highly curated Light in the Attic label in September.
But this has never been exclusively a sophisticate's game. “Bad” singing was commonplace novelty fare on TV talk and variety shows from the 1950s through the 1970s, under the watch of Ed Sullivan, Johnny Carson, and the Smothers Brothers—whether in the warbling falsetto and ukulele strums of the comic-poignant Tiny Tim or the very Jenkins-esque strains of California housewife and grandma “Mrs. Miller,” who was put up by producers to sing the latest pop songs and even hippie drug anthems in her Edith Bunkeresque caterwaul.
The legacy stretches back even further, at least to the stages of 1890s vaudeville, where the temperance-crusading Iowa farm women the Cherry Sisters had to perform behind wire screens to protect them from the tomatoes and other projectiles rocketing at them from the crowd. Like IceJJFish, they inspired endless speculation about whether their clunky song-and-dance routines could really be done unawares, but if they were play-acting, then they safeguarded the secret to the ends of their lives.
This question of intention haunts the history of bad singing, and there have been successful fakes, such as the deliberately drecky lounge-music duo Jonathan and Darlene Edwards, who in real life were the accomplished conductor-arranger Paul Weston and his wife, the easy-listening pop singer Jo Stafford. But they take the act too far, in the pattern of the overdone “Hollywood tone deaf” singing we so often hear as a gag from movie and TV characters. Streep, a verifiably good singer, is much better in Florence Foster Jenkins—not caricaturing her model's mistakes but conveying that she is trying her best and not succeeding, as anyone might.
That it's so difficult to sing “badly” well is another reminder of the inherent instability of the concept. Every great singer is a bad singer sometimes. A friend reminded me of the superb moment near the end of Janet Jackson's 1995 single “Runaway” when she sings “I just know we'll have a good time,” then comments, “Uh, didn't quite hit the note—that wasn't such a good time.” In perhaps the finest book about the complications of loving voices, The Queen's Throat, Wayne Koestenbaum recounts how the operatic deity Maria Callas had terrible off nights, especially as she grew older and developed a “flap” in her high range. But these flaws, this fissure between her greatness and her humanity, made her admirers adore her all the more. This is not so far from the affection Jenkins' go-for-it fallibility bred, as Streep's robed and tiara-crowned performances show us: She was the complete diva, in everything but ability.
The popular music canon is full of singers who aren't conventionally tuneful or precise, particularly after the loosening up brought by rock and, to greater extremes, the celebrations of transgressive amateurism in punk and hip-hop. The human race is split between people who can't stand the nasal swooping of Bob Dylan's voice and people who think his counterintuitive phrasing and stresses make him one of the great expressive interpreters. He's lately been on a campaign to prove the latter with his two albums covering Tin Pan Alley standards, slyly setting himself up in competition with Frank Sinatra.
The other night, my mother was talking about how much she loved Leonard Cohen's songs, but only on the page or when performed by other people—his own voice, to her, was just a monotonous, rushing drone, “bluh-bluh-bluh-bluh.” I wanted to retort that I find his delivery at once witty and moving, and more so in his old age. I think of him in the lineage of bardic recitation and plainsong. But I knew I'd never win. Cohen himself makes the joke on “Tower of Song,” declaring with a groan, “I was born like this. I had no choice./ I was born with the gift of a golden voice.”
When I mentioned to friends that I was working on this article, more than one quoted a line from another mumbly poet-singer, David Berman, of Pavement cohorts the Silver Jews: “All my favorite singers couldn't sing.” This is admittedly my instinctive allegiance, with all my post-punk, boho, Velvet Underground, DIY, bluh-bluh-bluh baggage.
And that's without even accounting for the further-out vocal styles of, for instance, Yoko Ono, who mesmerized me at first hearing. Her flutters and screams are frequently on hit lists of awful singing, which makes sense if you assume she's supposed to be measured next to the Beatles, instead of next to traditional Asian theater music, avant-garde opera à la Alban Berg, the performance-art experiments of her Fluxus art-movement peers, and even labor pains. Her accidental entry into the pop marketplace through John Lennon made her accessible as a role model in particular to young women looking to unleash their wilder voices through the decades.
Sometimes “bad” singing is just down to changing times and fashions, the way that 1920s boy-toy crooners such as Rudy Vallee can sound ridiculously mannered to modern ears (see Mr. Show's “Monsters of Megaphone” sketch), while today's mushy “indie girl voice” provokes the ire of more senior ears.
Your favorite voice always will be someone else's most despised (as I've discussed at length elsewhere). If it's the expansive contours of Björk, there are others to whom she's formless and grating. If it's the soaring crescendos of Whitney Houston, I'm afraid there are many—though it's less often admitted since her tragic death—to whom her version of “I Will Always Love You” was an over-the-top, exhausting travesty of Dolly Parton's original. If it's Aretha Franklin … well, maybe you're on safe ground.
Canadian journalist Tim Falconer recently delved into what “bad” singing means from a very personal angle, with his new book, Bad Singer. Questioning if friends and family were right to call him “tone deaf” ever since childhood, Falconer simultaneously takes up singing lessons and undergoes scientific testing of his theoretical musical potential.
Many people who believe they're tone deaf are merely unpracticed. But Falconer, to his regret, learns that he does register as part of the estimated 2.5 percent of the population that is “amusic”—unable to detect or produce pitches accurately. The worst amusia cases are like the late author and neuroscientist Oliver Sacks' French colleague François Lhermitte, who told him that when he heard music, “he could say only that it was ‘The Marseillaise,' or that it was not,” or his patient who said music sounded like nothing but the clatter of pots and pans. Given this, the researchers are surprised to hear that Falconer is an avid music fan who's devoted much of his life to records and concerts.
After two years of fitful and frustrating study, he does improve enough to brave his way through a couple of songs (the Beatles' “Blackbird” and Joe Strummer's “Silver and Gold”) at a living-room concert for friends. More vitally, he comes to appreciate the crucialness of an emotional connection with a song, which can make it land even if you're wavering or speak-singing. He tells me he's discovered that he responds most to the elements of music less dependent on pitch, such as timbre, texture, and dynamics.
Despite appearances, Florence Foster Jenkins probably wasn't amusic: She was talented enough to have been a piano prodigy in her childhood, known as “Little Miss Foster,” and invited to perform at the White House. Her abilities may have degenerated, as the movie heavily hints, due to nerve damage brought about by the syphilis she contracted from her first husband on her wedding night, or alternatively by the mercury and arsenic she took to treat it. There was also a head injury in a car accident (unmentioned in the film). All reminders of that fleshy, tender embodiedness of the voice again.
On the other hand, Jenkins might simply have been overambitious and too stubborn to admit it—Hank Williams and Woody Guthrie were gifted singers, but they likely wouldn't have fared well with Wagner and Strauss, either. For that matter, Pavarotti would have sounded ridiculous in a honky-tonk. Technical incompetence is one way of singing badly, but badness can also come down to context and occasion.
Karaoke is our culture's leading haven for democratically bad singing. But at the weekly event at a former veterans' club I attended in British Columbia this winter, my old friend Colin took to performing anodyne numbers such as “Don't Worry, Be Happy” and “Tea for Two” in a gruff, atonal, disaffected bark. To our gaggle of mostly transplanted East Coasters, it was perfectly hilarious. To the local karaoke host Stacie, who could knock out a devastating version of a belter like K.D. Lang's “Constant Craving” on a dime, it was a barely tolerable abuse of her show—not good-bad, just obnoxious. I'm still not sure which of us was in the right. I also have no idea if Colin could sing on-key if he tried.
As well as music so bad it's good, there can be music so technically good that it's bad, because it reads as pretentious or self-indulgent. This is something that chafes nonfans of American Idol, The Voice, and other televised singing competitions—that the oversinging and Mariah Careywannabe vocal curlicues used by contestants to show off their skills can come at the expense of meaning and soul. I felt a similar tension while binging a reality series about college a cappella competitions called Sing It On! I was startled whenever the participants referred to themselves as “musicians,” as I'd been appreciating their routines more like Olympic gymnastics or (as the title suggests) high-level cheerleading.
American Idol also became infamous for the “bad auditions” segments in each season's opening episodes. The breakout star of this brutal ritual was William Hung, whose awkward rendition of Ricky Martin's “She Bangs” in 2004 led to an unexpected audience petition for repeat performances and a temporary career on the talk-show and county-fair circuit. (Today he's reportedly an administrator with the L.A. County Sheriff's Department.) That Hung was being demeaned and patronized as an amusing Asian mascot is depressingly clear, foreshadowing many of the YouTube viral videos as well as South Park's cartoon treatment of the Hong Kongborn immigrant singer Wing, who is also an actual human.
Still, like most of the un-Idols, Hung was an enthusiastic participant. His gameness, like Jenkins', genuinely endeared him to many followers. Scholars such as Katherine Meizel and Matthew Wheelock Stahl have written about how Idol's bad auditions weren't only ritual sacrifices, but a necessary flipside to the success fantasy Idol promulgated: It showed that even the losers believed deeply in the terms of its supposed meritocracy, thus proving its validity. Viewers got to size up candidates and vicariously judge them wanting or worthy, the kind of power bosses and authority figures more often wield over our own economic lives.
Singing can also be “bad” but not failed, thanks to cult followings, if it is sufficiently esoteric, hermetic, and poetically doomed. Artists such as the Shaggs, the reclusive but prolific mail-order recording artist Jandek, and the gifted but dangerously bipolar singer-songwriter Daniel Johnston are all often lumped into the category of “outsider music,” which is meant as an honor, albeit a problematic one: Outside of what and compared to whom? (As I've written before, Michael Jackson in his way was a more thoroughgoing outsider than Syd Barrett or Captain Beefheart.)
Yet there is also a kind of “bad” singing that designates insiderness. At its crassest, the Hollywood version of this was memorialized in the 1990s Golden Throats series of compilations of actors such as William Shatner or Telly Savalas “singing” Beatles or Johnny Cash songs—celebrities doing whatever they wanted, competence be damned. Similarly there's the nepotism of being married or born into featured-singer status, as witness the late Linda McCartney's usually buried, jumble-sale vocal parts.
A much more resonant example is drag-queen camp and its later queer heirs such as Kiki and Herb, who manipulate the so-bad-it's-good blend to destabilize boundaries and toy subversively with straight culture for the benefit of fellow code-switching adepts. But it could also include the in-crowd effects of the casually “off” singing of 1970s outlaw-country singer-songwriters such as Kris Kristofferson, as well as hardcore screaming metal growling, and the shouts, yelps, and yawps of punks and post-punks.
Then there's the don't-give-a-fuck, off-key singing that has been spreading through hip-hop for more than a decade, in a line descending from Biz Markie's old-school classic “Just a Friend” through Kanye West's 808s and Heartbreak to Lil Wayne, Future, and Young Thug. (Off to one side is Drake, set apart as in so many things by the fact that he actually seems to care about hitting the notes.) Their drawls and mumbles are often denatured and hybridized via liberal doses of Auto-Tune, the pitch-correction software that at its highest settings causes tones to rip, skip, chirp, and yodel erratically. These effects have metaphorical overtones, invoking both trauma to black bodies and a vision of futuristic mutation and escape. (They're equally popular in Jamaican dancehall, and Asian and African music.) But up front, like so many gestures in hip-hop, they mark of-the-moment “realness” and a warning to stay the hell out if you can't handle it.
It's conspicuous that most of these ingroups are dudes' domains. Acceptably performing femininity in this culture still mandates that you look and sing pretty, even if you're as fierce as Beyoncé. The one big crack in that edifice was punk, which—especially in Britain, with the likes of the Slits and X-Ray Spex's Poly Styrene and the Raincoats, but in America, too—unleashed many unruly, angry women's voices from the tyranny of tunefulness. As Pitchfork's excellent survey on “feminist punk” confirmed this week, it has continued doing so through riot grrl to this day, though much more for white women than anyone else.
Celebrating “bad” singing can be a way of opening up space for society's “bad subjects,” the misfits of gender, sexuality, racial hierarchy, and other confining norms. Still, assuming that noise and dissonance always denote a positive kind of rebellion would be too cheerfully literal minded. Think of the dystopian violence of neo-Nazi punks and others who 1970s critic Lester Bangs called “white noise supremacists.” There are morally bad kinds of singing, too, from the declamatory timbre of propaganda anthems to the debased, mugging slander of blackfaced minstrelsy. Not every impulse deserves to soar on wings of song.
The Florence Foster Jenkins movie ends with a vision of the heroine's own conception of her Carnegie Hall experience, blissfully innocent of its imperfections. Even if that was so, which we can never know, should we give a big hug to Jenkins' deluded freedom? Or should we side with the audience members who might have laughed because through the medium of this rich, oblivious clown they felt like they were witnessing the indecent exposure of the naked emperor? Jenkins' long musical honeymoon, after all, was sustained through a bought-and-paid-for conspiracy of silence among New York elites.
The movie's central moral is that bad singing matters less than bad listening, an ungenerous unwillingness to hear humanity in all its difference and richness. This is broadly true—ethnomusicology has shown how different cultures and eras have vastly varied ideas of harmony—but it's also too easy, too American Idol, to say that sincerity and striving are all that count. Like the 2014 Oscar winner Birdman, this film portrays critical thought—as displayed in the New York papers' appalled reviews of Jenkins' performance—as its ultimate villain, the slayer of hope.
I can't help but think of the current election cycle, in which the dissonant noise virtuoso Donald Trump is doing his best to drown out the careful sheet-music follower Hillary Clinton.
As Lauren Berlant wrote in her brilliant Trump essay in the New Inquiry this week, “Trump's response to what he has genuinely seen is, analytically speaking, word salad. Trump is sound and fury and garble. Yet—and this is key—the noise in his message increases the apparent value of what's clear about it. The ways he's right seem more powerful, somehow, in relief against the ways he's blabbing.” It's the same way Jenkins' many wrong notes make you give her extra credit for the ones she hits.
Most of all, though, “the second thing about Trump is that Trump is free.” It doesn't matter that Trump's version of freedom has little to do with any potential freedom of our own. We just thrill to hear him going off-book, off-pitch, in ways that so few politicians in our focus-grouped, vocal-coached lifetimes would dare.
Still, that doesn't turn every melody-mangling talent-night amateur into a proto-Trump. When we ask whether something is “bad,” the best response is “bad for what?” The question of bad singing leads to wondering, What is singing for?
In Falconer's Bad Singer, he outlines several evolutionary theories: that singing developed as a means of sexual display, or for emotional signaling, for group bonding, or perhaps for nothing—as a side-effect of language and other functions. The prominent evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker famously called it “auditory cheesecake.”
If it's all about sex or cheesecake, then bad singing would have little value. But if it's more about how we reveal ourselves to one another and forge communities, as so much of human religious and tribal history suggests, then whether you can match pitch or not matters way less than being in the game.
That's how I felt watching the 2008 documentary Young@Heart, about a Massachusetts-based senior citizens' chorus that became renowned for its unexpectedly rowdy covers of rock, punk, and soul. The participants don't necessarily sing well, but like Florence Foster Jenkins, no one can deny they sing. It's one of the most emotionally overwhelming movies I've ever seen. Several members die during the filming, and it builds to a climax in which one of the oldest choristers, beset with multiple afflictions, sings Coldplay's “Fix You” onstage with a breathing tube between his lips, dedicating it to his recently fallen friends: “When you lose something you can't replace … ” I'd never liked that song. But this man's rendition remade it in every syllable and inflection as a hymn to human dignity, all to the arrhythmic, gasping pulse of his oxygen tank.
“Good” or “bad” never entered my mind.
With the scorching temperatures in New York City, I'm dreaming of the cool waters of Lake Tahoe with this view I captured a few weeks ago. At an elevation of 6,225 ft (1,897 m), Tahoe is the largest alpine lake in North America and the second deepest in the United States with a depth of 1,645 ft (501 m). ? by @benjaminrgrant (at South Lake Tahoe, California)