Stories from Slate

Trump the Benevolent

Torie Bosch — Thu, 13 Jul 2017 18:45:20 GMT

Even by Trump standards, the optics were bad. Six Afghan girls and their chaperone were denied entry to the United States—twice!—where they were scheduled to take part in the FIRST Robotics Challenge in Washington. Denying this team of teenagers the opportunity to participate in a robotics competition seemed indefensible, making them poster girls for the pointlessness and cruelty of the Trump administration’s stance toward international visitors.

But Wednesday night, those optics changed. “At the urging of President Donald Trump, U.S. officials have reversed course and decided to allow into the United States a group of Afghan girls,” Politico’s Nahal Toosi reported. Observers on Twitter begrudgingly gave Trump “credit where it’s due” for doing the right thing.

But Trump doesn’t deserve any credit here. He has intentionally and systematically made the American immigration system crueler. It’s not as if he heard the story of these Afghan girls and said to himself, Huh, maybe I was wrong about needing a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Instead, he deigned to help a small group of people affected by his inhumane policies. Praising him for granting passage to these girls is like giving someone a round of applause for draining the ocean and then pouring in a thimbleful of water.

We don’t know exactly why the girls’ applications were rejected—the State Department hasn’t released that information, citing privacy concerns—but it seems highly probable the rejection shouldn’t have happened in the first place. “One common reason Afghans are rejected for U.S. entry is the concern that they will overstay their visas and refuse to go back home,” Politico noted. So it’s possible that such a rejection could have happened under a previous administration. The Trump White House, however, has made it quite clear that it is not comfortable with Muslim visitors to the United States, even if the travel ban did not include Afghanistan specifically.

While only parts of the original ban are currently in effect, the president and his minions have damaged the United States’ reputation as a place that welcomes scientists, engineers, and technologists (and admittedly, pretty much everyone else in the world). In May, a coalition of academic and educational groups raised concerns about plans for “enhanced vetting,” writing in a letter to the State Department, “We are very concerned that if the proposed changes are implemented, international undergraduate and graduate students, scholars, and scientific collaborators may be discouraged from coming to the United States.” A March report said that 40 percent of colleges had seen declines in applications from international students.

Although media attention has been focused on the Afghan girls, the five-person team from Gambia ran into similar problems. The group was denied entry after an initial interview, but that changed after a second meeting at the U.S. embassy in Gambia. “It was very nice and sensible compared with the last [interview]. … The questions were related to the robotics. We had an interesting conversation and they were friendly,” a 17-year-old told Al-Jazeera. According to a press release from the FIRST Robotics Challenge, all teams have now been granted entry:

Teams under the Executive Order on travel such as Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and a team of Syrian refugees have all recently received their visas even after parts of the E.O. were reinstituted by the United States. These nations will be competing alongside other teams that have faced various challenges such as a team from Iraq, students from rural Honduras, and a team from Micronesia who had limited access to the internet.

While it is wonderful that the teams from Afghanistan and Gambia will make it in time for the competition—the FIRST Robotics Challenge begins July 16—the way this transpired still reeks. These teams are akin to the “deserving poor,” sympathetic people who are entitled to help because they are innocent and adorable. But what about everyone else who’s ensnared in Trump’s immigration net? By permitting the Afghan girls to compete—something that should have been an easy yes without all this hoopla—Trump gives himself an undeserved patina of reasonability: If someone should get in, I’ll make sure they can get in.

The reality is that Trump cares about the Afghan girls because their story was on TV. In December, Slate editor Julia Turner described Trump’s focus on saving a small number of jobs at a small number of firms as governing by gimmickry. This is the same phenomenon: helping a (sympathetic, sufficiently grateful) group rather than tackling a large-scale problem, particularly one of his own creation.

Since the robotics competition is in Washington, it’s possible the president will seek out a photo-op with the Afghan team as a further attempt to demonstrate his magnanimity. But Trump didn’t do this for the six Afghan girls. He did it to project an image of benevolence. That’s an image we should all be smart enough to see right through.

The Donald Trump Election Brag Tracker

Grace Ballenger — Sat, 01 Jul 2017 22:37:00 GMT

When Donald Trump chatted with three Reuters reporters in April, he handed each of them a map memorializing his win over Hillary Clinton. “It’s pretty good, right?” the president asked before adding, “The red is obviously us.” This was not an outlier. Trump also bragged about his election victory at a Republican Party retreat in Philadelphia days after the inauguration, during an appearance with the president of Romania, and in response to a question about anti-Semitism.

Slate’s Donald Trump Election Brag Tracker keeps a close watch on the president’s penchant for praising his own remarkable performance in the 2016 election, a contest in which he lost the popular vote.

Want to know the last time Trump bragged about the election?

Type in whenwasthelasttimetrumpbraggedabouttheelection.com and you’ll be redirected to this page.

We can’t do this tracking without your help. If we missed any Trump election brags, or if you hear a new one, let us know by filling out this form.

In Defense of “Sent From My iPhone”

Torie Bosch — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 17:22:00 GMT

On Wednesday night, the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post both ran pieces reporting that Attorney General Jeff Sessions met with a Russian official during the 2016 campaign despite having denied the existence of any such meetings during his Senate confirmation hearing.

Soon after, the White House sent CNN’s Jim Acosta an angry denial:

It’s a funny statement in and of itself, practically inviting anyone with cartooning ambitions to draw “senator” and “campaign surrogate” hats for Sessions. But what about the four familiar little words at the end?

People on Twitter certainly didn’t overlook the “Sent from my iPhone” bit.

The excellent Margarita Noriega had a ball:

And others followed:

It’s commonly accepted that “Sent from my iPhone” is the lamest of sign-offs, a closing line that makes any email at least 10 percent more eyeroll-worthy. But why?

“Sent from my iPhone” is useful information. It explains why an email is brief to the point of curtness, or why there’s a bizarre typo. In 2013, Bianca Bosker wrote on the Huffington Post that she adds “Sent from my iPhone” to emails sent the old-fashioned way—it buys leniency:

When I fake an iPhone reply, I do so with the full knowledge the recipient will recognize that it means I’m operating at a limited capacity, on a tiny touchscreen device that won’t allow me to look up the detailed information he’s asking for, or include any pleasantries or answer in great depth.

I can’t endorse this subterfuge, which cynically takes advantage of the social contract. Are we no better than animals?

But Bosker nails the utility of the signature. Some of those mocking the Sessions statement might agree on the practicality point but argue that the specific wording is the issue. “You can do better than ‘Sent from my iPhone,’ ” Alexis Madrigal scolded on the Atlantic in 2013. And indeed, many people have composed witty, snappy alternatives to the default, vanilla “Sent from my iPhone.” Madrigal’s sister’s signature is rather winsome: “Sent from a phone. Regularly foiled by autocorrect. But duck it." I’m particularly fond of one occasional email correspondent’s notice: “(From phone, through space!)”

But let’s be honest. The only thing lamer than “Sent from my iPhone” is trying too hard to create a witty alternative and coming up short. Few people sparkle in this medium—the sign-off has to be short, it has to communicate the message clearly, it has to suggest that you jotted it off quickly in a moment of inspiration. Above all, it must be funny and winky and self-deprecating. How exhausting.

I don’t blame the White House rep, then, for sticking with the default text. Why is it offensive for someone with a busy job—dismantling democracy is hard work!—to use his or her iPhone to send a work message late at night? I reserve the right to change my mind, though, if it comes out that the spokesperson added “Sent from my iPhone” as a way to buy time or forgiveness. That is a crime against email etiquette that I can’t abide.

Will the Internet Set Us Free? A Future Tense Event Recap.

Torie Bosch — Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:36:08 GMT

It’s tough to remember sometimes, but it wasn’t so long ago that we had to settle dinner-table disputes about arcana by turning to old-fashioned books instead of Google. Therefore, what we wistfully refer to as “the early days of the internet” wasn’t that long ago, either. “The internet is this remarkable, young thing,” said Jonathan Koppell, who is dean and professor of the College of Public Service and Community Solutions at Arizona State University.

He was speaking on Thursday, Feb. 23, in Mexico City, at an event called “Will the Internet Set Us Free?” Hosted by Future Tense—a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University—the event offered an opportunity for speakers from both the United States and Mexico to reflect on a tension at the heart of the internet today: Whose interests does it benefit more—the people’s or the government’s? Koppell pointed out that in the “early days of the internet … people talked about it as if it was a separate place.” But what happens online has both positive and negative real-world effects, and is in turn affected by real-world events, as we’ve seen again and again.

When governments surveil or censor internet activity, they typically cite national security to justify their actions. In the United States, it comes down to terrorism, while Mexico has had to “face some tough tradeoffs” between privacy and security in the face of drug violence, said Andrés Martinez, editorial director of Future Tense.

Katherine Mangu-Ward, a Future Tense fellow and the editor in chief of Reason, believes that in the United States, at least, “that tradeoff right now is so far skewed toward security.” (She also argued that basically any legal intrusion on personal autonomy initially justified on national security grounds will eventually be used to track down “that joint in your dresser drawer.”) Carlos Bravo Regidor, a professor and the coordinator of the graduate journalism program at Mexico’s Centro De Estudios Y Docencia Económicas (CIDE) research institute, objected to the “tradeoff” framing, saying, “when we speak about the ‘tradeoff’ … it feels like a game, like a plus and minus.”

All speakers agreed, though, that the key is for government to rely on institutions that fairly and accurately assess threat levels. In the United States, we already have the institutions to allow and to require judicial review of decisions by the state to gather information, to keep information, and in particular to get information from private entities that hold it currently,” Mangu-Ward said. But “we don’t use those institutions. At this point it’s a very rubber-stamp system.” Koppell agreed, saying, “The question is, can you create some sort of mechanism-embedded institutions that we know work so that it won’t be abused? … I will be honest, I’m skeptical.”

Bravo highlighted the need to have these sorts of conversations even when we trust the people in power. He pointed out that the U.S. surveillance programs were in place long before Trump took office, as was the U.S. machinery to deport undocumented immigrants. Bravo also pointed out that unlike in the U.S. where there might be a fear of the all-knowing state, “[i]n Mexico, we do not have a strong state.” At times at the local and state level, he added, governments have been overwhelmed, or even seized by, organized crime.” That makes trusting in institutions more “problematic,” he said.

During a later conversation, Shane Harris, a national security writer with the Wall Street Journal, pointed out that the idea of an omnipotent U.S. surveillance state is belied by tensions between the Trump administration and its own intelligence agencies, many of whose officers “are nervous about the powers of surveillance, too.” Harris said it remained an open question whether the day would come when the National Security Agency would balk at the legality of orders issued by an overzealous President Trump.

Edward Snowden featured prominently in the evening’s discussion, with Bravo and Emily Parker, a Future Tense fellow and the author of Now I Know Who My Comrades Are, agreeing that his revelations of mass NSA surveillance had done much to erode foreigners’ confidence in the U.S. as a trustworthy steward of the internet. Harris said that the Snowden leaks “pealed back a lot of the layers on the internal mechanisms” used “to strike that balance” between security and privacy,” which provided context for all debates ever since on where lines should be drawn. Harris nonetheless refused, when asked, to call Snowden a “hero,” echoing instead the former executive editor of the New York Times, who instead called Snowden a “great source” when asked the same question. Carlos Brito, a program director at Mexico’s Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales, a digital rights advocacy group, volunteered that he considered a Snowden a hero, given the dire need for more transparency “when we find this dark side of the internet.” Because so much is opaque here, he said, “We need to have the data to provide good responses.”

Alexandra Haas, the president of Mexico’s federal anti-discrimination council (the CONAPRED), cautioned that unfettered online speech isn’t always a societal good to be championed, certainly not when the speech is hateful and incites violence against certain groups. In those instances, Haas said, some government interference with our freedoms is justified to protect our citizens, though she also acknowledged that there’s a slippery slope danger in allowing governments to distinguish between offensive but permissible speech and dangerous speech that should be banned. Julio Vega, the director general of the Internet.mx trade association, said companies like Google and Facebook were getting better at policing such hateful speech on their own, and he and the others concurred that the decline of early online anarchist-like online anonymity has been a part of the internet’s maturation.

Another recurring theme from the event was the relationship between business and government when it comes to surveillance—both how the two collaborate, and which one the average citizen should fear more. If she had to pick one, Mangu-Ward would rather Google invade her privacy. “I’m much less suspicious of Google than the government. Google’s sinister plan is ultimately just to sell me stuff.” And she noted that there’s a basic distinction to be drawn between the state and companies, since the latter cannot put you in prison. But this was a point of contention, with Mark Hass saying in a later conversation that “we need to be as concerned about the power of Big Business and Big Marketing Interests … as we are with government.” Hass, a professor of practice at ASU’s Cronkite School and W. P. Carey School of Business and the former CEO of Edelman U.S., said that people are often unaware of “all the data we are throwing out into the universe.” His words echoed something Bravo had said earlier: “Being on the internet always leaves a trace. It’s part of its nature.”

All of that data and all of those traces have to converge somewhere. Dan Gillmor, a professor of practice at the Cronkite School and a Future Tense fellow, argued that we are currently seeing “a recentralization of our communications and our technology”—putting our information “in the hands” of both government and corporate entities. Government surveillance—in the United States or elsewhere—fundamentally requires cooperation of business.

Yet citizens can collectively do good mobilizing behind online data, too, as several of the speakers reminded the audience. During a discussion about transparency, Alexandra Zapata Hojel, a senior researcher at the Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad (IMCO), discussed a project that she has worked on to bring previously opaque data on Mexican public schools’ performance into “the hands of parents and teachers.” In doing so, she said, “it’s changing daily lives of citizens and the power balance” between authorities and citizens. Another recent IMCO project Alexandra described was the well-known “3 de 3” program in which citizens demand that candidates for public offices throughout Mexico release financial statements identifying their financial holdings, and potential conflicts of interest.

The event also addressed the ways that the internet changes the relationship not just between citizens and the government, but between people. A particular point of discussion was filter bubbles—the way that the internet can cocoon people with similar views. León Krauze, an anchor with Univision based in Los Angeles, told a story about meeting with Obama White House political director David Simas in 2013. Simas told Krauze that “he was particularly concerned how the system of selection and distribution of social networks … was creating these big ideological bubbles”—bubbles we saw in action during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. Krauze expressed concern that the same thing would play out during the 2018 Mexican presidential election: “I am very concerned of this consolidation of these ideological bubbles, and in our case it’s even more complicated because there’s some factors and actors such as social violence.” Zapata agreed, saying, “I want to see an internet where you are more exposed to different points of views.”

But Emily Parker pointed out that filter bubbles have some utility, too. “It’s this exact phenomenon that has made the internet so powerful in authoritarian countries,” she said, because it connects likeminded activists. “If you’re in China, that bubble is really valuable.” Julio Vega also cautioned against focusing too much on the filter bubble problem: “We need not to be so naive to say, oh, social networks are the problem … and if we shut them down, everything is going to be OK.”

Which brings us back again to the early idea—as Koppell nodded to—that somehow the internet is not real life. Gabriela Gomez-Mont, the founder and director of Mexico City’s Laboratorio Para la Ciudad, argued at one point that “The digital space has made us question what we call the real space.” But Parker took it a bit further, saying: “The internet is not a separate universe. It just reflects the world we live in.”

Resist the Urge to Add Audio to Your Morning Shower

Torie Bosch — Tue, 21 Feb 2017 22:22:35 GMT

For most of my life, my morning shower was a media-free zone. In recent years, in fact, it was my only media-free zone. At any given moment, I consume media: While cleaning the apartment or walking to the Metro, I listen to podcasts. While cooking, I half-watch Madame Secretary or Law & Order: SVU on Netflix. While getting ready for the day, I have CNN on in the background. While working out, of course, I have music. (Bad music.) I read, I listen, I watch—from when I wake up and check my phone until I put my Kindle on the bedside table at night.

Except, for a long time, when I was in the shower. For 15 minutes or so in the morning, I was forced to be alone with my thoughts. “It builds character,” I told myself. I had to talk to myself, because there was nothing else to occupy me. When I heard that some of my colleagues listen to podcasts in the shower with the help of a ziplock bag, I scoffed. I guffawed. I condescended. “They can’t even go without media while they’re in the shower? They have a problem,” I congratulated myself.

And then I gave in. Oh god, I gave in.

It started in the summer of 2016, soon after my husband went out of town for work for a few months. The timing was terrible, as I was also grieving the loss of two family members. Each morning, when I put down the phone and went into the bathroom to shower, the quiet got to me. It was at that moment that my isolation felt most acute, that I couldn’t stop my thoughts from churning—the regret about things unsaid to my loved ones, the chains of events I wish I could have broken, the things on my to-do list that I worried I wouldn’t have the energy to tackle.

I knew the real solutions to the problem, the things my therapist would have (and did) suggest: more yoga. More mindfulness and intentionality. Sitting with the feelings. Instead, I drowned them out. One morning, I put my iPhone in a glass on a ledge in the bathroom, and I turned on NPR One—NPR’s most excellent app, which Terry Gross described in one ad as “sort of like Pandora for public radio.” It’s been part of my daily routine ever since. As the shower starts, I get the national news roundup from the top of the hour. Then it gives me the Washington, D.C., area headlines before heading to individual stories, selected based on my previous listening habits.

Before I gave in to NPR One in the morning, I was a bit like an alcoholic who swore that she had her problem under control because she never cracked a beer before 5 p.m. on the dot. Clearly I didn’t have a media problem, I thought, because I have this whole long period every morning in which I am alone with myself. Yes, I know that 15 minutes per day of media-free time is not actually a long period. But logic had no place in my media habit. When I crossed that Rubicon and began listening to NPR One during my ablutions, I admitted that I now strongly desired, maybe required, external mental stimulation at all times.

As the editor of Future Tense—Slate’s partnership with Arizona State University and New America, about how emerging technologies change our lives—I know the research and the debates about our media addiction. I know attention is a commodity. I know it’s tragic that we can’t stand in line at the grocery store without pulling out a phone. I know that being alone with your thoughts can support creativity and personal growth. I know I am conditioning myself to be more easily distracted.

Admitting you have a problem may be the first step to recovery, but for now, I’m stalling out here. I don’t intend to fix myself any time soon. My morning NPR One listen has become a comforting part of my routine, and listening to public radio has given me a little bit of a boost at work, making me aware of stories I might otherwise have overlooked. The rationalization is winning out over the self-awareness. May my attention span rest in peace.

But you—it’s not too late. Keep that quiet time in the shower. When it’s gone, you may not actually miss it. But you’ll probably miss that sense of superiority that it gives you.

When a Cat Crashes a Video Conference Call, Is It Charming or Irritating?

Torie Bosch — Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:45:00 GMT

My husband was in a Skype-based job interview a couple of years ago when he noticed that the men he was talking to suddenly looked a little puzzled. Then he saw their eyes move across the screen. They had spotted one of our cats, or rather the tip of her tail, as she walked through the background. When he realized what was going on, Chris picked her up and said, "Callie, not now." His interviewers laughed, and their conversation continued.

He got the job.

When you’re in the office, holding conference calls on Skype, Zoom, or Google Hangouts is terrible: There’s always some problem with the technology, and everyone gets a little snippy, blaming the other side when things go haywire. (No, New York office, you froze.)

Doing a video conference call from home is even worse. You have to clear out any mess in the frame, fuss with the lighting, think about thinking about fixing your hair, maybe put on a bra. (OK, this isn’t completely logical, but I always do it anyway.) As my colleague L.V. Anderson put it, “Video conferencing counteracts the benefits of working from home, makes participants distracted and self-conscious, and fails to reproduce the social benefits of meeting in person.”

It’s true. There is just one reason why it’s worth putting up with video meetings while working from home: the opportunity to see pets.

Callie seems to be somehow drawn to the sound—she also gets very worked up when calls are on speakerphone—and so crashes my video calls on a regular basis. Her ears will show up in the corner of the screen, or she’ll headbutt my face, or she’ll place her front paws on my shoulders. She’s quiet, luckily—though I always keep myself on mute when not speaking, just in case. In my heart, Callie’s antics are utterly delightful. My kind-souled colleagues are good sports about it, sending me enthusiastic messages that say “CAT!” when they spot her on Zoom. I’m not the only Slatester with a feline interloper. My colleagues Jim Newell, Rebecca Onion, and Jacob Brogan all have cats—Leo, Behemoth, and Molly, respectively—who make guest appearances in our regular meetings. Their better-behaved pets typically sleep in frame, instead of winding their way back and forth the way Callie does.

But not everyone finds a cat cameo so endearing. I was once Skyping with a potential contact whom I didn’t know very well. Callie did her thing, this time walking on the table right in front of the camera. “Oh, sorry, it’s my cat!” I said, grinning. The woman I was talking to nodded and kept talking, not giving me even a little bit of a smile. I was miffed.

Nevertheless, I have to admit that it can be distracting—like when Callie nonchalantly positions her butt in the exact wrong place. And then I don’t quite know what to do: Do I just ignore it and hope everyone else does, too? Do I gently shove her away? Do I let her blackmail me into petting her off-camera so she doesn’t interrupt more? My standard practice after the first intrusion is to smile with a self-deprecating roll of my eyes to acknowledge that it’s ridiculous, and then ignore her. But at times, her presence is undeniably intrusive—like when Slate Editor Julia Turner had to ask me to repeat something because Callie was blocking the mic. (Julia was very nice about it. Still: Sorry, boss!)

When I informally polled some people about whether it’s distracting or charming when a cat crashes a meeting, most expressed enthusiasm. But a candid few admitted it could be a problem. “It’s charming and great unless the cat owner decides to use it as an opportunity to turn the conversation onto his/her cat, in which case it’s unprofessional (and also very un-cat-like),” one former colleague told me. And while I certainly don’t want to turn the conversation onto my cat, this does hit at my “What do I do when it happens?” anxiety. It was a good reminder me not to spend too much time apologizing for the cat.

Another friend mused that this is another example of how the line between work and life is blurring. When your co-workers can literally see into your home, professionalism has to lose some of its gloss. Normally, I’m simply taken by how tastefully decorated my colleagues’ apartments are—but it’s comforting to sometimes see a little disorder, a little lived-in chaos, like a messy living room or a poorly behaved cat.

A colleague who is a mother took this idea a bit further. “I think it’s kind of cute when it happens. But I’m annoyed because I know everyone wouldn’t laugh and say it’s OK if someone’s kid crashed their conference call, which I’m always terrified of when I’m working from home.” When she Zooms in from home for a call, she said, she goes into a room and locks the door so her young son can’t interlope. It was disheartening to hear. I’d like to say that I would laugh and say it’s OK if her kid—who is lovely—popped up.

But I can understand where the anxiety might come from. Of course, a child can actually speak, while my cat is (usually) just a visual interruption. And it’s not socially acceptable to shove a child away—with love—as you can do with a cat.

But maybe it’s that we find a glimpse of a home life endearing, but we don’t want to see too much. A friendly cat and a ratty couch are fine. A child and an unmade bed in the background, with a CPAP machine on the nightstand? Unfair as it is, that might be too far. At least for now.

UPDATED: The Floodgates Are Open on Trump Sexual Assault Allegations

Torie Bosch — Thu, 27 Oct 2016 21:20:00 GMT

At the presidential debate on Sunday night, co-moderator Anderson Cooper spent a lot of time trying to get Donald Trump to answer a simple question: Had he ever—as he boasted in the instantly infamous video with Billy Bush—grabbed a woman “by the pussy” or kissed her unexpectedly? After a lot of dithering, Trump said, “And women have respect for me. And I will tell you: No, I have not.” He then tried to take the conversation right back to his comfort zone: borders.

Now, new accusers are coming forward with accounts of Trump’s sexual misconduct, some saying they are infuriated by his denials. A Miss Teen USA 2001 contestant told the Guardian today that Trump “deliberately walked in” on her and another contestant in their dressing rooms “while they were naked and getting dressed for a rehearsal”; this report followed a Buzzfeed story alleging that Trump, during the 1997 pageant, intentionally walked into a communal dressing room being used by girls as young as 15. In yet another report from today, CBS News produced a 1992 video from Entertainment Tonight shot at Trump Tower: “In the clip, Trump asks one of the 10-year-old girls if she’s ‘going up the escalator.’ When the girl replies, ‘yeah,’ Trump turns to the camera and says: ‘I am going to be dating her in 10 years. Can you believe it?’” (Update, Oct. 13: Readers are asking why we didn’t include a widely circulated civil suit alleging that Trump raped a 13-year-old girl. This week, a judge ordered that Trump have legal representation at an upcoming court date for the suit. But as Jezebel has reported, there are a lot of reasons to reserve judgment on that story.)

Still others are making full-fledged allegations of sexual assault against Trump. Below is a list of the women who have so far accused Trump—if we’ve missed any, tell us in the comments.

* * *

Who: Ninni Laaksonen
When we found out about her allegations: Oct. 27, 2016
When she says it happened: 2006
What she says happened: The allegations surfaced when the Finnish newspaper Ilta-Sanomat reached out to her and other women who had had contact with Trump. Laaksonen told the paper that she met him in 2006, when she was Miss Finland and competed in the Miss Universe pageant. When she was taking a picture with Trump and other contestants, she said, according to the Telegraph's translation of the Finnish, “Trump stood right next to me and suddenly he squeezed my butt. He really grabbed my butt. I don’t think anybody saw it but I flinched and thought: ‘What is happening?’ ”

* * *

Who: Jessica Drake
When we found out about her allegations: Oct. 22, 2016
When she says it happened: 2006
What she says happened: At a news conference in Los Angeles, Drake, who is an adult film actress and represented by attorney Gloria Allred, said that Trump grabbed and kissed her without her consent at a charity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, Nevada. CNN reports that one of Trump's representatives called her afterward to invite her to Trump's room alone. When Drake refused, she said, Trump got on the phone and offered her $10,000 and use of his private jet if she would accept the invitation. On Oct. 24, Trump responded to Drake’s allegations: “One said, ’He grabbed me on the arm.’ And she’s a porn star... Oh, I’m sure she’s never been grabbed before.”

* * *

Who: Karena Virginia
When we found out about her allegations: Oct. 20, 2016
When she says it happened: 1998
What she says happened: At a press conference with attorney Gloria Allred, Virginia said that the incident happened as she was waiting to for a car in 1998, at the U.S. Open tennis tournament in Queens, New York. According to Virginia, she overheard Trump saying to other men, “Hey, look at this one. We haven’t seen her before. Look at those legs.” Then, she said, he “walked up to me and reached his right arm and grabbed my right arm. Then his hand touched the right inside of my breast. I was in shock. I flinched. ‘Don’t you know who I am? Don’t you know who I am?’ That’s what he said to me.” Then her car arrived and she left.

* * *

Who: Cathy Heller
When we found out about her allegations: Oct. 15, 2016
When she says it happened: About 1997
What she says happened: According to the Guardian, it happened at a Mother’s Day brunch at Mar-a-Lago, in front of other people, as he went from table to table to say hello: “Some 20 years ago, she claims, when she met Donald Trump for the first and only time, he grabbed her, went for a kiss, and grew angry with her as she twisted away. ‘Oh, come on,’ she alleges that he barked, before holding her firmly in place and planting his lips on hers.” A relative who was there that day "didn’t see Heller’s entire interaction with Trump, but saw him get ‘in her face’ and saw Heller pull away. ‘He was very forceful.’ ”

* * *

Who: Summer Zervos
When we found out about her allegations: Oct. 14, 2016
When she says it happened: 2007
What she says happened: Zervos appeared on Season 5 of The Apprentice, which aired in early 2006. In a press conference Oct. 14, 2016, with attorney Gloria Allred, Zervos described two occasions when Trump touched her inappropriately. When she visited him in New York in 2007 to discuss a potential job, she says, he kissed her on the lips both when she arrived and when she left. Some time later, he asked her to meet him at a hotel in Los Angeles for dinner. When he met her in his hotel bungalow, “he came to me and started kissing me open-mouthed as he was pulling me toward him,” she says. She pulled away and sat on a chair, until he told her to sit next to him. “He then grabbed my shoulder and began kissing me again very aggressively and placed his hand on my breast.” She says she pulled away again, only to have him again grab her and try repeatedly to get her to go into the bedroom, suggesting they “lay down and watch some telly-telly.” She tried to make a joke, but he grabbed her again. “I pushed his chest to put space between us and I said, ‘Come on, man, get real.’ He repeated my words back to me, ‘Get reeeal,’ as he began thrusting his genitals. He tried to kiss me again, with my hand still on his chest.”

Later, Zervos said, she got an offer from the company for a job, but for much less money than she expected, and she wrote him a letter saying she thought she was being penalized for not having sex with him. He never responded.

* * *

Who: Kristin Anderson
When we found out about her allegations: Oct. 14, 2016
When she says it happened: Early 1990s
What she says happened: The Washington Post writes that “Kristin Anderson was deep in conversation with acquaintances at a crowded Manhattan nightspot and did not notice the figure to her right on a red velvet couch—until, she recalls, his fingers slid under her miniskirt, moved up her inner thigh, and touched her vagina through her underwear.” Anderson says that at first she largely laughed off the incident, sharing it with friends occasionally. But with time, and with Trump’s presidential run, she has come to think about it differently. As with other accusers, she says she was disturbed by the Access Hollywood video from 2005 and by his denial at the town hall debate that he has never touched a woman inappropriately. “It wasn’t a sexual come-on. I don’t know why he did it. It was like just to prove that he could do it, and nothing would happen,” she told the Post.

* * *

Who: Natasha Stoynoff
When we found out about her allegations: Oct. 12, 2016
When she says it happened: 2005
What she says happened: People magazine’s Stoynoff writes that she visited Mar-a-Lago in December 2005 to interview Trump and his wife, Melania, who was pregnant. While Melania was getting changed, Stoynoff says, Trump took her to another room. “Within seconds, he was pushing me against the wall, and forcing his tongue down my throat,” she says in an account of the incident for People. Later, he told her, “You know we’re going to have an affair, don’t you?” She told a colleague after the trip and thought about reporting it, but she writes, “I was ashamed and blamed myself for his transgression. I minimized it (‘It’s not like he raped me…’); I doubted my recollection and my reaction. I was afraid that a famous, powerful, wealthy man could and would discredit and destroy me, especially if I got his coveted PEOPLE feature killed.”

* * *

Who: Jessica Leeds
When we found out about her allegations: Oct. 12, 2016
When she says it happened: Early 1980s
What she says happened: Leeds tells the New York Times that on a flight more than 30 years ago, she was upgraded from coach to first class, where she was seated beside Trump. From the Times: “Mr. Trump raised the armrest, moved toward her and began to grope her. Ms. Leeds said she recoiled. She quickly left the first-class cabin and returned to coach, she said.” Leeds says she never told anyone about it until the campaign started, when she began telling a small number of people.

* * *

Who: Rachel Crooks
When we found out about her allegations: Oct. 12, 2016
When she says it happened: 2005
What she says happened: In the same New York Times article as Leeds’ story, Crooks says that when she was 22, she worked as a receptionist at a real estate company based in Trump Tower. One morning, she rode the elevator with him. “Aware that her company did business with Mr. Trump, she turned and introduced herself. They shook hands, but Mr. Trump would not let go, she said. Instead, he began kissing her cheeks. Then, she said, he ‘kissed me directly on the mouth.’ ” He later asked for her phone number, suggesting that he wanted to give it to his modeling agency. She told her sister and her then-boyfriend about it soon after it happened.

* * *

Who: Mindy McGillivray
When we found out: Oct. 12, 2016
When she says it happened: 2003
What she says happened: From the Palm Beach Post: “McGillivray, 36, said she was groped by Trump at Mar-a-Lago 13 years ago. She said she never reported it to authorities. But her companion that day, photographer Ken Davidoff, vividly remembers that McGillivray pulled him aside moments after the alleged incident and told him, ‘Donald just grabbed my ass!’”

* * *

Who: Erin Burnett’s friend
When we found out: Oct. 7, 2016
When she says it happened: Unknown
What she says happened: After the infamous “grab-’em-by-the-pussy” video surfaced, CNN’s Erin Burnett said on air that an unnamed friend of hers reported that Trump once attempted to kiss her on the mouth. Burnett quoted her friend as saying, “Trump took Tic Tacs, suggested that I take them also. He then leaned in... catching me off guard and kissed me almost on the lips. I was really freaked out.”

* * *

Who: Cassandra Searles
When we found out: June 17, 2016
When she says it happened: 2013
What she says happened: In 2013, Searles, then Miss Washington USA, competed in the Trump-owned Miss USA pageant. Yahoo News reports that in June, Searles posted on Facebook a photo of Trump with the Miss USA 2013 competitors. “Do y’all remember that one time we had to do our onstage introductions, but this one guy treated us like cattle and made us do it again because we didn’t look him in the eyes? Do you also remember when he then proceeded to have us lined up so he could get a closer look at his property? … Oh I forgot to mention that guy will be in the running to become the next President of the United States.” After some of her fellow beauty queens responded to the post, she added in a comment: “He probably doesn’t want me telling the story about that time he continually grabbed my ass and invited me to his hotel room.”

* * *

Who: Temple Taggart
When we found out: May 14, 2016
When she says it happened: 1997
What she says happened: Taggart told the New York Times that when she was Miss Utah in 1997, “‘He kissed me directly on the lips. I thought, ‘Oh my God, gross.’ He was married to Marla Maples at the time. I think there were a few other girls that he kissed on the mouth. I was like ‘Wow, that’s inappropriate.’”

* * *

Who: Jill Harth
When we found out: April 4, 2016
When she says it happened: 1993
What she says happened: Harth’s allegations appeared first in a 1997 lawsuit and were surfaced first in the Boston Globe, then again in the big May 14 New York Times article on women and Trump.* She says that when she and her partner worked with Trump on a beauty competition in the early ’90s, he harassed her, eventually escalating to what she calls “attempted rape.” In July 2016, she told the Guardian, “He pushed me up against the wall, and had his hands all over me and tried to get up my dress again … and I had to physically say: ‘What are you doing? Stop it.’ ”

* * *

Who: Ivana Trump
When we found out: 1993
When she says it happened: 1989
What she says happened: During Trump’s first messy divorce, Ivana alleged in a deposition that he assaulted her when he was angry and in pain after undergoing a hair-line procedure with a plastic surgeon she had recommended. In the 1993 book Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump, Harry Hurt III described a violent episode. “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me,’ ” Hurt wrote. Ivana later walked this back, saying in a statement included in Lost Tycoon, “I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.”

* * *

The Trump campaign, of course, is denying all of the new accusations and is reportedly planning to retaliate by introducing new women who say Bill Clinton violated them. “With rape culture being what it is, these facts are going to shock millennial women. There will not be a millennial woman who will want to vote for her when these facts come out,” Trump deputy campaign manager David Bossie told Bloomberg News.

It seems more likely that more Trump stories are going to come out, and that these stories will continue to portray a man accustomed to abusing his power. “I was so upset that he thought I was so insignificant that he could do that,” Crooks told the New York Times.

If and when new allegations come out, we will update this list.

*Correction, Oct. 13, 2016: This post originally misstated where Jill Harth's lawsuit against Trump was first widely reported. It was in the Boston Globe in April, not the New York Times in May.

Isn’t It Time We Designed an Election for the 21st Century? A Future Tense Event Recap.

Torie Bosch — Fri, 07 Oct 2016 19:08:04 GMT

It’s a common refrain: We do our banking online, self-driving cars are hitting the road, and even fridges and coffee machines connect to the internet. Yet voting seems stuck in the past.

On Oct. 5, Future Tense—a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University—held an event in Washington, D.C., to ask the question: “Isn’t It Time We Designed an Election for the 21^st Century?” The happy hour conversation examined the problems with our current voting process, and paid particular attention to barriers to participation for many eligible voters, and how technology might help fix them. Of course, as is so often the case in technology, to perform a major upgrade might be to download a whole new mess.

The event opened with a presentation from Matt Adams, program director at the design firm Ideo, who led a project with Los Angeles County to create “the first publicly owned voting system.” The initiative had two primary goals: “to remove the barriers that kept some voters from feeling like they could vote,” and “to create a system that worked really well now” as well as in the future, should regulations and technology change. At heart, “Every machine should serve every voter,” regardless of challenges related to mobility, literacy, vision, or other issues. Technology can help there by offering more accessibility settings, for instance. In the conversation that followed Adams’s presentation, Jamelle Bouie, Slate’s chief political correspondent, reinforced this message, saying that what we need is “an election system that meets voters where they are.”

For example: wherever they are waiting in line, most voters are probably staring at their phones. Adams said that people often express a wish to vote on their smartphones, but “we haven’t figured out yet how to vote anonymously and securely over the internet.” That point is borne by the recent revelations that hackers, likely from Russia, have attempted to infiltrate voter registration systems. Jeremy Epstein, senior computer scientist at SRI International, expressed frustration with the “I can bank online, why can’t I vote online?” refrain. He doubts “that cities and counties with very limited budgets are going to be able to successfully do online voting.” Banks “spend billions of dollars securing their systems; election offices don’t,” he said. And a margin of fraud that might be acceptable to banks would not be to voters. (Those smart fridges connected to the internet? A photo circulating online purports to show one at a Home Depot that was hacked to display Pornhub.) Furthermore, he said, new voting technology needs to take into account the fact that the average poll worker is over 70, which could complicate Election Day troubleshooting. If malfunctioning technology ends up creating longer lines to vote, some people might decide not to bother casting a ballot.

Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick pointed out, though, that the problem with voting goes well beyond infrastructure that is at once antiquated and not ready for primetime. “Even if I could vote by blinking twice,” she said, many people still fundamentally believe that their votes don’t matter. And the fix for that won’t come from technology.

Watch the full event on the New America website. Also in Slate:

“Changing Votes Isn’t the Only Way Hackers Could Undermine an Election,” by Rep. Zoe Lofgren
“What Hacks Into Voter Registration Systems Say About the State of Local Government Cybersecurity,” by Brian Nussbaum
“Bring On the Ballot Selfies,” by Mark Joseph Stern

Can Genetic Engineering Stop Zika? A Future Tense Event Recap.

Torie Bosch — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:10:47 GMT

It’s easy to forget that the Zika virus—which has been linked to microcephaly in fetuses, paralysis, and miscarriage, among other things—burst onto the international scene mere weeks ago. In that time, as the news of the virus has spread around the globe—and, so, too, has fear that the virus’s territory may expand from Latin America to the United States and elsewhere, carried primarily by the Aedes aegypti mosquito. In tandem with reports about the virus’ potential effects and research into the vaccine, there have been calls to use technology to modify or even eradicate mosquitoes to save human lives.

On Feb. 23, Future Tense—a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University—held an event in Washington, D.C., to discuss the potential use of genetic engineering to stop Aedes aegypti from spreading Zika as well as dengue, yellow fever, and chikungunya. (“It’s a nasty beast,” as moderator Richard Harris, science correspondent on leave from NPR and a visiting scholar at ASU’s Consortium for Science, Policy, & Outcomes, put it.) Combined, these diseases kill tens of thousands each year, and they may also begin to appear in new areas, as climate change allows Aedes aegypti to make its home in new places. But as panelists at the event made clear, it’s genetic engineering won’t be as easy as swatting at a bug nibbling on your arm—and an awful lot of discussion has to take place before large-scale mosquito-meddling takes place.

One of the things that the speakers emphasized was just how rudimentary our understanding of Zika is—at least in humans. Graciela Ostera, the director of the Immigrant Health Initiative at Georgetown University Medical Center’s Microbiology & Immunology Department, noted that it was first uncovered in Africa in the 1940s but was “associated with animal infection.” Furthermore, questions remain about the link between Zika and microcephaly, a condition in which babies are born with small heads, leading to other complications. It’s oft-cited that in one region of Brazil, about 4,000 babies with microcephaly were born to women believed to have contracted Zika during their pregnancies, but it isn’t clear that all of those cases were actually caused by Zika. Still, other serious medical problems related to Zika may crop up.

Also in the early stages: the technology that would be used to stop the spread of diseases and/or mosquitoes themselves. A company called Oxitec has been engaging in trials to genetically modify Aedes aegypti for a few years now, including in Brazil. As NPR explained in late January:

The company breeds and releases into the wild male mosquitoes that don't produce viable offspring. When females mate with the GMO males, they lay eggs that hatch but the larvae die before adulthood. Oxitec says trials conducted in Brazil and other countries over the past decade show releasing bioengineered male mosquitoes can reduce the wild Aedes aegypti population by 90 percent.

However, that approach takes some time. A faster and perhaps more effective method to eradicating disease would be to use gene drive. Kevin Esvelt, an assistant professor and principal investigator at MIT Media Lab’s Sculpting Evolution Group, explained that a gene drive

happens whenever a particular genetic element spreads through a population even though it doesn’t help the organism to reproduce. … [I]t’s a naturally occurring phenomenon, essentially every organism on the planet has either an active gene drive element or the broken remnants of one in its genome already. The question is, should we harness that phenomenon to spread changes that we are interested in?

That question of should such technology be used, rather than what the technology itself would look like, made up the bulk of the conversation. (For more detail on how gene drive works, read this great explainer from the medicine news site STAT.) Perhaps most importantly, the panelists wanted to know who would be able to answer the question.

Eleonore Pauwels, a senior associate and scholar in the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars’ Science and Technology Innovation Program, suggesteds that this might be a “test case for how do we better involve citizens … from different social background, from different cultures, different countries, into the innovation journey.” The “foresight required” will take require “more than the work of experts, elites, and more than political. It will require people to be able to gain enough knowledge, and digest that knowledge and own that knowledge so that they can be part of what we need to do.” She pointed to citizen science projects in Spain and Germany to monitor mosquitoes as evidence that nonexperts can and should be involved.

But Andrew Maynard, a professor at the School for the Future of Innovation in Society and director of the Risk Innovation Lab at Arizona State, said, “Most people who are going to be affected or impacted don’t have the bandwidth to think critically about the issues.” He emphasized that it’s not about “a lack of understanding”—it’s that they “have other things to worry about.” So the question is, “How do we make decisions in an area like this … where we actually don’t have the mechanisms to engage to engage with large sectors of the population simply because they don’t have the time?” But Ostera urged that “community engagement can be done.”

Bina Venkataraman, a Carnegie fellow at New America and director of Global Policy Initiatives at the Broad Institute, echoed these points about engagement by emphasizing that there is “a serious risk here of eroding the public trust—in fact, damaging the public trust so severely with respect to the technologies of CRISPR, to the technologies of gene drive” that it may ultimately affect our ability to use them to, for instance, treat cancer. The conspiracy theories about Zika already floating around might be related to poor understanding and a lack of engagement with the public.

As the Zika discussion continues, then, it will be critical to make sure that a diversity of voices are taking part—and being heard and understood. You can watch the full event on the New America site.

This 2014 Sci-Fi Novel Eerily Anticipated the Zika Crisis

Torie Bosch — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:49:00 GMT

Due to fear of the Zika virus, the government of El Salvador has asked women to delay pregnancy until 2018—almost two years from now. On Thursday, World Health Officials declared that the virus was “spreading explosively.” Zika symptoms are fairly mild for most people but the disease can be devastating for developing fetuses, resulting in babies born with tiny heads, a condition called microcephaly. (The connection between Zika and microcephaly hasn’t been established conclusively, but the evidence seems strong.) In a bit of cosmic cruelty, Zika has taken hold in South and Central America, where, thanks to the influence of the Catholic Church, abortion access is highly limited. In fact, El Salvador is known to have the world’s strictest abortion laws; in some cases, women have been locked up after having a miscarriage. No wonder the government doesn’t want women to get pregnant. It doesn’t want a generation of microcephalic babies on its hands—and it doesn’t want women demanding increased access to abortion. El Salvador’s request may be extreme, but it has some company; for instance, Jamaica has also suggested that women wait 6-12 months before getting pregnant.

Disasters, emerging diseases, and other news events often inspire us to seek out similar story lines in fiction, movies, and TV. The Ebola crisis of 2015 prompted many references to the 1995 film Outbreak (a film that now seems more cartoonish than scary). So it isn’t surprising that some on Twitter are invoking Children of Men—both the 1992 novel by P.D. James and the 2006 film adaptation—as a fictional precursor to the new Zika threat. In Children of Men, women simply stop getting pregnant. The cause of this worldwide infertility is unclear, but the effect is obvious: Humanity is on the verge of extinction.

But there is a better science fiction analog to the Zika crisis: The Book of the Unnamed Midwife, by Meg Elison, which was published in 2014 In Children of Men, abortion and birth control are rendered moot; in The Book of the Unnamed Midwife, birth control and a woman’s right to bodily autonomy are central to the plot.

In Elison’s novel, a pandemic nearly annihilates the population. And the disease itself is sexist, hitting women much harder than men. The few women who remain, whether because they are immune to the disease or somehow survive it, are in danger of being taken captive, to be used as sex slaves. To make the situation even crueler, women can become pregnant—but the babies all die. And so do a lot of the mothers.

When the titular midwife recognizes the forces at play, she disguises herself as a man for protection and goes raiding for birth control—Depo-Provera shots, the vaginal ring, the birth control patch. Every time she comes across women of child-bearing age, she tries to give them contraceptives. She describes her plan here:

So is that the mission now? Angel of birth control, out to stop the crop of dead babies before it starts? Got the morning after pill, but I doubt I’ll get to use it on anyone. Wish I could get some RU486. Have the tools to do a D&C if I meet anyone who needs to abort. Can implant an IUD, but passed them over at the university. Too risky without being able to sterilize. Guess this is what I can do. Can make it easier. Can’t fix it. Nobody can. Not that different from what I used to do. Every day I remember what Chicken said, = nothing to do now but survive. Doing that now, but it’s not the only thing. Can’t be. Just gotten to the point where it feels too hard to keep trying. Every woman in labor says she can’t do it. Couldn’t stop what was happening, but I could make it easier. All the same.

Our world is not nearly so bleak, of course. But if the women of El Salvador, Jamaica, and other countries under threat of Zika are being told to avoid pregnancy until the virus is under control, then an angel of birth control is exactly what they will need. As in The Book of the Unnamed Midwife, we are facing a disease that disproportionately affects women—and in a part of the globe where reproductive choice is limited at best.

Introducing Futurography

Torie Bosch — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 11:50:00 GMT

It’s difficult to talk about the future. So many of the technologies and scientific breakthroughs that appear to be on the horizon may never come to fruition or will be markedly different than we imagined them. (Hoverboards, anyone?) And the conversations about any development with a sci-fi flavor tend to be polarized: A new technology will save the planet and make us all rich! No, it will doom the environment and dislodge women’s uteruses!

That’s why Future Tense—a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University—has created Futurography. Future Tense is conceived as the citizen’s guide to the future; for six years now, we’ve been exploring emerging technologies and their implications for policy and society. But we decided it was time to get a little more fundamental. Futurography will combine the storytelling techniques of journalism and the instructive capacity of a massive open online course, or MOOC, in an effort to educate readers about the technologies that will define tomorrow. Each month from January through May, we’ll choose a new technology and break it down. What is the actual state of the science? Who are the scientists and thinkers leading its development? What are the primary ethical and policy debates? What’s the best piece of pop culture about the topic? We’ll also ask you what you want to know and will host at least one meetup—be it a live happy-hour debate in Washington, D.C., or a live chat with an expert—each month. At the end of the month, we’ll give you a quiz so you can see how much you’ve learned. And if you like it, we’ll keep doing it after May.

We’re kicking off Futurography with geoengineering—the concept of tinkering with the atmosphere to fix climate change. Our introduction and cheat sheet will help you get the lay of the land, and over the rest of the month we’ll introduce you to more ideas and questions about geoengineering. Other topics Futurography will explore include cyberwar, driverless cars, artificial intelligence, and more.

If you have suggestions or ideas, please feel free to email them to me at torie.bosch@slate.com or tweet them @FutureTenseNow. You can also sign up for the weekly Future Tense newsletter, which will round up the Futurography content and let you know about upcoming events. Happy learning!

The Tyranny of Algorithms: A Future Tense Event Recap

Torie Bosch — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:22:42 GMT

They are “terrifying black boxes.” They are “the poetry of computation.” There is a “mystical element” to the way we speak about them. They “can … illuminate some of our human biases.” They are … algorithms?

On Thursday, Dec. 10, Future Tense discussed “The Tyranny of Algorithms” at New America in Washington, D.C. During the three-hour event, computer scientists, journalists, policy experts, and others discussed how algorithms are influencing our lives. Perhaps more importantly, they discussed how our conversations about algorithms are undermined by people’s misunderstanding.

So what, exactly, are algorithms? “Algorithms are … the intersection between the idealism of mathematics, the idealism of policy, the idealism of big ideas, and the pragmatism of building a system that actually functions in the real world,” Ed Finn, the academic director of Future Tense, said during the introduction to the event. But algorithms are also, at heart, recipes, step-by-step instructions. Or maybe they are marionettes: Throughout the event, speakers came back to the idea of “pulling strings.”

That image was especially relevant in discussions about algorithmic transparency. Algorithms go far beyond the Netflix recommendation with which so many of us are familiar. (Have you ever been both offended and impressed by a Netflix suggestion? It happens to me regularly.) They can write news articles, determine qualification for government services or benefits, identify people who are purportedly more likely to commit crimes, and much more. When algorithmic decision-making can have such life-altering consequences, it’s critical to know what assumptions are baked into code. Nick Diakopoulos, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland’s College of Journalism, said that it’s important for corporations and governments to “develop mechanisms and standards for what you can disclose about the data, about the algorithms.” He’s hopeful that this will happen, with a little consumer pressure: “What we’re starting see the first inklings that there will be a demand for … disclosure.” Case in point: the uproar that followed Facebook’s infamous “emotional contagion” study.

Beyond accountability, transparency can provide an opportunity to verify results. “Who checks to see if Google search results are accurate?” said David Auerbach, Slate’s Bitwise columnist and a Future Tense fellow at New America. Holding algorithms accountable can help engender trust.

But there’s a flip side to algorithmic accountability. Laura Moy of the Open Technology Instituted noted an algorithm might be able to scan job applications and note if a hiring manager had a pattern of passing on résumés with indicators that an applicant was a minority. It could be an unconscious bias—and perhaps, once brought to his attention, the hiring manager would take steps to change his practices. Auerbach agreed, suggesting that “if Facebook shows you ‘Here are three keywords we associate with your interests’ and shows you three horrible things,” then maybe you can take a hard look at yourself.

But there is a danger in taking algorithms without skepticism, or with trying to connect dotes that might not actually be related. Jennifer Golbeck, an associate professor at the University of Maryland’s College of Information Studies, said that people tend to cling to single statistical insights—for instance, that algorithms have discovered that people who like curly fries on Facebook tend to be smarter—without thinking about the broad story. Moy hit a similar note, saying that people can mistakenly believe that a statistically significant correlation is definitive.

Despite all of the caveats presented at the event, our Age of Algorithms comes with some bright sides. Golbeck pointed out that, online, individuals can often be reduced to a single bad moment on social media. A terribly worded tweet can sink a person’s career and open them up to infamy. But “algorithms see beyond that,” taking into account a whole person, or at least a whole person as they are represented online. (Algorithms: Less judgmental than the media!) And if you don’t like how you think algorithms are summing you up, there are some steps you can take. Jacqueline Wernimont, an assistant professor of English at Arizona State, said that people are putting forth a “ton of effort … to subvert” tools and systems that try to paint a data portrait of people. “How do you get the algorithm to treat you the way you want to be treated?” she asked. For instance, you can attempt to create false data, by using a browser extension that clicks on every ad on a page, to confuse data-collectors about your interests. Maybe that isn’t exactly how you want to be treated (you can’t exactly do unto algorithms as you would like them to do to you), but it would give you an extra degree of privacy.

Algorithms, then, are instructive pieces of information about our world, ourselves, and our behaviors—and not what we often think they are. The panelists noted that a lack of computational understanding may contribute to people’s misgivings about algorithms. Golbeck suggested that people could “learn about algorithms without having to learn about computer science. … You might start with some kind of basic tutorials on the Turing machine. … [I]t starts to help you see, ‘OK, these algorithms [are] not this mythical thing.”

Science fiction writer and UMD assistant professor Lee Konstantinou may have summed the event up best. His short story about algorithms concluded, “The tyranny of algorithms is nothing more than the tyranny of the past over the present.” It’s about how your past—reduced to bits of data, often out of context—dictates what happens to you today, and tomorrow. And that’s why it’s important for us to continue to interrogate algorithms—all that they are—and discuss their effects.

Visit the New America website to watch the event in its entirety.

Related in Future Tense:

“In Defense of Algorithms: They get a bad rap—but that’s because people don’t understand them,” by John Villasenor
“What Algorithms Want: It’s about much more than serving up slightly creepy ads,” by Ed Finn
“Why Google Searches Favor Democrats: It’s not because the company is biased—it’s more complicated,” by Daniel Trielli, Sean Mussenden, and Nicholas Diakopoulos
“Algorithms of War: The dangers of using decision-making technology in sensitive international affairs,” by Miranda Bogen
“Why Does Google Say Jerusalem Is the Capital of Israel? It has to do with the fact that the Web is now optimized for machines, not people,” by Mark Graham

It’s National Dog Day, So Let’s Pick Pop Culture’s Greatest Pooch

Jacob Brogan — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:02:00 GMT

Aug. 26 is National Dog Day, a day to celebrate man’s best friend, and when it comes to the dogs of pop culture, there are plenty to choose from—you have your Marmadukes, your Old Yellers, your Scoobies Doo. So devoted are we to our furry friends that there's even a website to warn you if one dies in a book or film. But which pooch is pop culture’s greatest ? We picked our favorite canine candidates, and now it’s time for you to vote for the top dog.

Tramp, The Lady and the Tramp

A feature-length animated tribute to the allure of a jaunty rapscallion from the wrong side of the tracks, Walt Disney’s The Lady and the Tramp prompted an epically hilarious rant in Whit Stillman’s The Last Days of Disco by an uptight fellow who accused the film of idealizing a “self-confessed chicken thief and all-around sleaze ball” and “programming women to adore jerks.” Yes, Tramp, that adorable, collarless mutt, is disreputable and (at the beginning at least) a bit of cynic, but all it takes to redeem a guy like that is the true love of a dainty purebred cocker spaniel, right? –Laura Miller, books and culture columnist

Gromit, Wallace and Gromit

Pity poor Gromit, the unspeaking, eye-rolling, put-upon hero of Aardman's stop-motion Wallace and Gromit films. Sure, Wallace is the hero in this relationship, but it's his loyal pooch who tends to solve the mysteries, rescue the damsels, and generally have any idea that the world isn't the cheese-filled, benevolent place Wallace believes it to be. He represents all dogs that are secretly smarter than their so-called owners—but who love them anyway. —Dan Kois, culture editor

Snowy (French: Milou), The Adventures of Tintin

A central character in The Adventures of Tintin from the strip’s debut in 1929 to its conclusion in the mid-’70s, Snowy may be the most well-traveled dog of all time. What other pup has flown to the moon (in his own adorable custom space suit, no less!), explored the depths of the ocean, and climbed the mountains of Tibet? Heroic to the point of foolhardiness, Snowy has saved his human friends on numerous occasions, but he also knows how to party. Indeed, given his love for whiskey, this adorable terrier might be described as a literal boozehound. —Jacob Brogan, Future Tense research associate

Asta, The Thin Man

In a world of star canines, Asta (born Skippy) rules over them all. The adorable Wire Fox Terrier does his own thing with spunk and commitment, whether it’s protecting his family from other home-wrecking pups or ducking for cover when things get rough. But he’s a devoted companion, too, helping Nick and Nora sniff out clues during their alcohol-fueled mystery-solving adventures. Smart, athletic, and (sometimes) brave—basically, he’s everything you’d ever want in a dog. —Aisha Harris, staff writer

The Beast/Hercules, The Sandlot

“The legend of the Beast goes back a long time, before any of us could even pick up a baseball.” So begins Michael “Squints” Palledorous’s treehouse tale in The Sandlot, which describes to his friends the “true killing machine” that slumbers in Mr. Mertle’s backyard. For most of The Sandlot, the Beast is perceived as a feral monster that eats errant baseballs and their owners, “bone and all.” But when Benny “The Jet” Rodriguez outruns the dog, leaving it weak, vulnerable, and in need of assistance, it becomes clear just how unfounded the boys’ terror was. Another thing that becomes clear: the best dogs aren’t always cuddly, or even friendly. They just help you face your fears. —Sharan Shetty, staff writer

Chewbacca, Star Wars

I hope no Wookiees pull my arms off for this one. The original inspiration for Star Wars’ leading fuzzball was a dog: George Lucas’ Alaskan Malamute, Indiana. The great Lucas biography Skywalking tells the story:

Chewbacca leaped out of Lucas’s imagination one day as Marcia [Lucas’s wife] and Indiana drove away from the house. Sitting next to Marcia in the front seat, the dog looked like a giant, shaggy creature.

Of course, Chewbacca’s canine traits have never been lost on dog-owners, who know the feeling of always having a furry creature at their side. The creators of Spaceballs even picked up on the connection when they came up with the sidekick Barf, played by John Candy, who is half man and half dog. (“I’m my own best friend,” Barf explains.) Meanwhile, one origin that’s been suggested for the name Chewbacca is собакa, the Russian word for dog. Once you accept that Chewbacca is just the Star Wars universe’s equivalent of Toto, he’s hard to beat.

By the way, if Indiana’s name sounds familiar, that’s not a coincidence, as Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade itself acknowledges. (Indiana Jones’ real name is Henry Jones, Jr., his father explains, while Indy got his nickname from the family dog.) Perhaps no dog has left a bigger pawprint on popular culture than Indiana. —Forrest Wickman, senior editor

Balthazar, Vicious

The greatest dog in pop culture is Balthazar from Vicious, the British sitcom that returns to PBS on Aug. 23. Anyone who’s ever lived with an aging pet will recognize the challenges owners Freddie and Stuart face when caring for their 21-year-old mutt—frequent visits to the vet, the difficulty of getting his little oxygen mask on, a glass eye that occasionally falls into his water bowl. It’s hard to say what breed Balthazar is, because he’s become one with blankets and basket—we only know he’s alive because his owners occasionally prod him with a stick to confirm that they need to buy more dog food. Unlike some other never-revealed TV characters—say, Charlie of the angels or Big Bang Theory’s Mrs. Wolowitz—Balthazar is utterly silent. He really is the perfect dog. —June Thomas, culture critic and Outward editor

Seymour, Futurama

During a Q-and-A session at an October 2014 Future Tense event on science fiction, Futurama’s Patric Verrone pleaded with the audience not to ask him about “the dog.” For Futurama fans, just the words “the dog” can inspire tears. When pizza delivery boy Fry is accidentally frozen on Dec. 31, 1999, his devoted pup tries to save him—but no 21st-century humans listen. And so he waits, and waits, and waits, in what was purportedly an ode to a famously loyal Japanese dog [see: Hachikō]. Surely, Futurama’s mutt is the most honorable creature ever to bear the name Seymour Asses. Now please excuse me, as I need to sob. —Torie Bosch, editor of Future Tense

Mr. Peanutbutter, BoJack Horseman

Mr. Peanutbutter is the kind of enlightened, leather-cuff-wearing, earnest guy you might expect to encounter in Los Angeles. He’s also a dog, with all the interests of a dog, like chasing mail trucks and chewing bandanas. He starred in a TV show called Mr. Peanutbutter's House that was similar to BoJack's show, Horsin' Around, both of which borrowed elements from many family-friendly sitcoms of the ’80s and ’90s, but with an extra dose of adorableness, because they starred not Scott Baio or Tony Danza but anthropomorphized animals. And Mr. Peanutbutter is a yellow labrador, like Air Bud or Full House’s Comet, the ur-breed for heartwarming family entertainment. Sweet, loving Mr. Peanutbutter is the best pop culture dog because he is a parody of the whole idea of pop culture dogs, in conversation with all the Snoopies and Lassies that came before him. —Heather Schwedel, copy editor

Poochie (of “The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show”), The Simpsons

He’s the in-your-face anti-star of “The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show,” one of the greatest episodes of The Simpsons ever made. You've heard the expression “let’s get busy?” Well, a vote for Poochie is a vote for a dog who gets biz-zay. Sadly, if Poochie wins this award—and please, please, Slate readers, help Poochie win this award—it will be a posthumous honor, as he died 18 years ago on the way back to his home planet. —Jack Hamilton, pop critic

Hachikō

Even among his many fictional counterparts, real-life hero Hachikō is the dog who best exemplifies just why they’re known as “man’s best friend.” When the Akita was adopted in 1924 by Hidesaburō Ueno, a professor at the University of Tokyo, Hachikō would loyally greet his master each day as he arrived at Shibuya train station after work. When one day the professor died of a brain hemorrhage and never came back, faithful Hachikō dutifully continued to wait for him, returning to meet the train at the same time each day long after Ueno had passed. So beloved was the pooch that a statue of him was erected at Shibuya, where he is honored every year on April 8. He was further immortalized in the (considerably fictionalized) Richard Gere tearjerker Hachi: A Dog’s Tale. I dare you to watch it with a dry eye. —Marissa Visci, culture intern

Doge

The best dog in pop culture did not romp across a movie screen or sniff her way through a book; all she did was lend her piercing gaze to the Internet. Her fans did the rest. Doge, whose off-Web name is Kabosu, has become iconic. She came as a perturbed-looking Shiba Inu, but has emerged an icon. One day, she’s a Twinkie. The next, she’s a taco flying through space. And the next, she’s got her face on currency. She’s the perfect storm that happens when exemplary canine-cute combines with meme-friendly side-eye. Now, any shibe—or dog, or flying Pop-Tart cat, or iconic portrait—can be subject to the doge treatment. Through the power of the Internet, this pooch has managed to transcend her bodily form to take over the world—one shapeshift at a time. She is the perfect icon for the bizarrely wonderful age in which we live. And I will never get sick of her. So Internet. Many canine. Such meme. Wow. —Laura Bradley, editorial assistant

To see the results, click here.

Google Doodle Honors Nellie Bly, Stunt Journalist Extraordinaire

Torie Bosch — Tue, 05 May 2015 16:00:00 GMT

Today’s Google Doodle honors the 151^st birthday of Nellie Bly, a woman who proved that stunt journalism isn’t always a bad thing. The remarkable Bly (whose real name was Elizabeth Jane Cochran) embodied gumption—she famously traveled the world in 72 days, for instance. But her most noteworthy work focused on the lives of the poor and disenfranchised in late 19^th-century New York City.

The animated Google Doodle is accompanied by an original song from Karen O, titled “Oh Nellie.” Karen O sings, “We gotta speak up for the ones who been told to shut up/ Oh Nellie, take us all around the world and break those rules ’cause you’re our girl.”

The song’s first line—“Someone's got to stand up and tell them what a girl is good for”—nods to the way Bly got her start. Her first writing gig, with the Pittsburgh Dispatch, came after she sent an angry response to a columnist who wrote a piece titled “What Girls Are Good For” about the need for women to stay at home.

And then she was off. Bly pretended to be a woman interested in buying an infant so that she could write an exposé on baby sellers. She spent hot summer nights in an infamous tenement building. One of her pieces carried the subtitle “Nellie Bly Tells How It Feels to Be a White Slave; She Tries Her Hand at Making Paper Boxes; Difficulty in Getting a Job; Most Work Two Weeks for Nothing; After One Learns the Trade It Is Hard to Earn a Living; A Fair Picture of the Work.”

Most importantly, on her very first assignment for the New York World, the 23-year-old Bly got herself placed in an insane asylum so she could report firsthand on the conditions. Talk about commitment. In the landmark piece “Ten Days in a Madhouse,” she wrote:

On the 22d of September I was asked by the World if I could have myself committed to one of the asylums for the insane in New York, with a view to writing a plain and unvarnished narrative of the treatment of the patients therein and the methods of management, etc. Did I think I had the courage to go through such an ordeal as the mission would demand? Could I assume the characteristics of insanity to such a degree that I could pass the doctors, live for a week among the insane without the authorities there finding out that I was only a "chiel amang 'em takin' notes?" I said I believed I could. I had some faith in my own ability as an actress and thought I could assume insanity long enough to accomplish any mission intrusted to me. Could I pass a week in the insane ward at Blackwell's Island? I said I could and I would. And I did.

She did indeed. Bly’s 10 days in the asylum, where she witnessed mistreatment, neglect, and hopelessness, helped spur reform and made her a journalism star. Sadly, Bly died alone and poor in 1922 of pneumonia. But more than a century after her career began, her work remains relevant and affecting. She tried to make the powerful and well-off confront the fact that their decisions and buying habits affected real human beings, who were capable of real suffering.

NYU Libraries has collected her work here.

Lean In Isn’t Just About Professional Fulfillment. It’s Also About Worst-Case Scenarios.

Torie Bosch — Mon, 04 May 2015 17:46:00 GMT

David Goldberg was the CEO of SurveyMonkey. But after he died unexpectedly Friday night while exercising on vacation in Mexico, most headlines referred to him in terms of his wife, Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, and her famous women-in-the-workplace philosophy. One Associated Press headline read, “David Goldberg, Tech Exec Married to ‘Lean In’ Author, Dies.” The cascade of tributes to Goldberg discussed his considerable professional achievements, but they took a backseat to praise about his dedication to his wife, to his two young children, and to supporting women. In the New York Times, Jodi Kantor wrote that people saw Goldberg as “the living, breathing, car-pooling center of a new philosophy of two-career marriage”—one in which women keep their professional ambitions intact even when starting a family.

So far, one remarkable thing has been missing from the conversation. Sandberg’s Lean In approach to a work-family balance has its flaws, contradictions, and omissions—among other things, it is applicable only to the relatively privileged, those who can afford child care and have an accommodating co-parent. But staying connected to the workforce even when you have young children isn’t just about professional fulfillment. It’s about staying prepared for a worst-case scenario. And the death of a beloved fortysomething husband, while you have young children, is a worst-case scenario.

After I was born, my mother, Regina Bosch—a very smart woman who has an MBA from Wharton—abandoned her consulting career to focus on her children. It seemed like a noble sacrifice: While her work meant a great deal to her, she thought that it would be better for my two brothers and me to have a stay-at-home mom. My father made a good living as an attorney, and our lives were comfortable.

But then, when I was 11, my father killed himself. My mother had been out of the workplace for more than a decade (with the exception of a part-time job she had just started, at a bank). Worse, she had just experienced the most traumatic event of her life: the suicide of her college sweetheart, whom she met at 17 and married at 21. Re-entering the workforce is difficult enough for women (and men) who take a few years off until their kids enter school or until a divorce changes circumstances. Jumping back into a career after 11 years, in the immediate aftermath of a spouse’s suicide, while trying to support three mourning children? Close to impossible.

“I had my age working against me. … I was 42, so people thought of me as perhaps older and not as vigorous,” she told me today. “And of course I had children to take care of, and I couldn’t do a lot of the schmoozing.” So she used the life insurance money to go back to school and get another master’s degree. But even with her skills and more up-to-date résumé, it was a major struggle. And the acute, complicated grief of losing my father to suicide didn’t help.

“I just didn’t have the emotional resources to dedicate myself to work 100 percent,” she said. “I was mourning Dad, but I also had to keep an eye on you guys, to make sure that you were OK.” Though she worked lots of jobs in the years that followed, her career never got back on the proverbial track; she didn’t earn the money or the personal fulfillment that she had before she leaned out. The gap in her résumé, emotional distress, health problems—many of them linked to trauma and the “mixed-up grief” suicide brings—all of it held her back.

Now, she regrets the time she took off after my brothers and I were born. “It would have been much better if I were working when he killed himself. I would have gotten another layer of support and had someplace to go that wasn’t so sad. And of course trying to prove yourself in a new job, when part of your mind is just this constant swirl of emotions, is really hard.”

Sandberg faces a terrible situation, but a situation that will not be made more terrible by worries about how to feed her children or pay the mortgage. She can focus on the most important issues—her grief and that of her children. Given Goldberg’s own successes, Sandberg would probably have been financially stable in widowhood even if she hadn’t leaned in. But in some ways, her message is even more powerful now: It looked like she had the perfect life, but no one is immune to shocking upheavals. Whatever her philosophy’s shortcomings, leaning in even a little bit—staying connected to the professional world while focusing on your children—can help keep you on your feet, if and when the universe lands a sucker punch.

Don’t Be Turned Off by Scrotal Recall’s Awful Name. The New Netflix Comedy Is Delightful.

Torie Bosch — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:20:12 GMT

When Scrotal Recall first showed up on Netflix this month, I wondered if it was a joke. When Netflix’s algorithm suggested that I would give it five stars, I marveled at how poorly the technology understood my impeccable taste. But then I finally watched the show. Though burdened with a terrible name, the six-episode British comedy is delightful: a funny, tenderhearted, and clever take on the friendship sitcom.

In the tradition of High Fidelity, Scrotal Recall, which first aired in the fall on the British station Channel 4, follows a shaggy-haired lad revisiting his past loves. But Dylan (Johnny Flynn) isn’t just on a quest to figure out where he went wrong. He’s tracking down his former lovers so he can tell them that he recently tested positive for chlamydia. (It’s the perfect STD to carry the story: Chlamydia is treatable, and people often don’t experience any symptoms. But those exposed do need to be alerted, because it can lead to infertility.) For his trip down sexual-memory lane, Dylan is accompanied by his two best friends, Evie (Antonia Thomas) and Luke (Daniel Ings).

Scrotal Recall is the dry British cousin of Happy Endings. Or maybe it’s How I Met Your Mother without the slather of CBS Velveeta that sometimes made HIMYM cringe-worthy. Its timeline hops between past and present. It contains some pithy observations about life as a single young adult—in one episode, for instance, Luke drags Dylan and Evie to a far-away gathering so he can try to bed a high-school crush. When the two fail to click with the rest of the attendees, the smart and endearingly sardonic Evie complains, “We’re at a party that doesn’t like us.” It’s a perfect description of a feeling that I, at least, know well: realizing at the beginning of a social event that you just don’t gel with anyone there. Luke is a Barney-esque pick-up artist, but his caddishness is dialed down just enough to make him seem vulnerable rather than venal. And Dylan, though he has an extensive list of ladies to alert about his STD, longs for true love. He and Evie are in a bit of a will-they-or-won’t-they situation, but the story line feels natural—perhaps because the short British season doesn’t drag anything out unnecessarily.

It’s also refreshing to see a show that handles an STD in a frank way, even if it does gloss over the long-term effects of chlamydia a bit. Dylan is embarrassed to call his old lovers to let them know, but he does the right thing—albeit occasionally at the wrong time.

The Race to Mars and Back: A Future Tense Event Recap

Torie Bosch — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:20:52 GMT

President Obama has called for Americans to enter orbit around Mars by “the mid-2030s.” To make that happen will require a lot of scientific and technological research, international cooperation, and some very fit, low-drama astronauts. (In other words, so much for that Mars reality show.) On April 9, experts discussed the challenges and opportunities at an event in Washington, D.C., held by Future Tense—a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University. (The event was underwritten by Lockheed Martin.)

“How you get there is going to define a lot of what we’re going to talk about,” noted Phil Plait, author of Slate’s Bad Astronomy blog. Plait moderated “A Day in Deep Space: Technology, Research, and the Human Condition,” a conversation that took a broad look at the most significant factors—such as the type of spacecraft and the fuel it uses—that would impact a group of astronauts headed for Mars.

One of the biggest questions about “How you get there” is: Will there be artificial gravity, or will astronauts be weightless? Each has its drawbacks. Tara Ruttley, an associate International Space Station program scientist, said, “Whatever the vehicle is to get us to Mars, I feel pretty strongly [that] there’s going to be microgravity involved.” Josh Hopkins, a space exploration architect at Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co., pointed out that artificial gravity is a lot like artificial turf and artificial sweetener—not quite the real thing, a substitute whose unknown effects could add in extra uncertainties to the process of space exploration. We know that spending an extended amount of time in microgravity environments changes everything from your bones to your immune system. But, as the panelists agreed, artificial gravity may be a case where the known dangers are preferable to the unknown ones.

So how do we get to Mars? Practice, practice, practice, of course. Hopkins suggested a six-month trip to lunar orbit or a 12-month excursion to an asteroid before undertaking the journey to the Red Planet. “The way we’re really going to know the answer to these questions is to do it,” he affirmed. “That’s when we’re really going to understand … what it’s like to be so far away you can’t really see the Earth anymore.”

For those of us who are secretly a little disappointed that a reality show won’t take place on Mars, some of the most compelling discussions involved the relationships among those who would be carrying out the missions. Hopkins noted the round trip could take up to two and a half years—six to nine months each way to get there and back, with 18 months on the planet itself. “How [do] you keep the crew happy and healthy and productive when they’re locked in a tin can for a long period of time?” asked Plait. Boredom could disrupt motivation and derail the mission, said Kate Greene, a science journalist who was embedded for four months on the NASA-funded HI-SEAS project.

The HI-SEAS project involves six people living in a geodesic dome in Hawaii for four months to simulate life on a Martian habitat, and one of the primary lessons of her experience, Greene observed, was the danger of monotony. “No astronaut wants to admit to being bored in space,” she said. “It’s a privilege to go and you might not go again if you said it was a boring experience.” Yet during her time in the dome, Greene was struck by the monotony that gripped her at times, despite her excitement about the project. Keeping astronauts’ motivation high and their attention sharp must be a strategic priority for any mission, said Ruttley. “You want the crew to feel like they’re focused on … something, not just hanging around all day waiting.”

Selecting a crew isn’t just about making sure everyone is contributing to the mission. There are more fundamental questions, too. Women consume fewer calories and occupy less space, said Greene, so perhaps an all-female crew would be more efficient. (She discussed that idea in a Slate piece in October 2014.) One problem with that notion, said Ruttley, is that—like artificial gravity—we have much less statistically significant information on how space travel impacts women: Only 57 of the more than 500 people who have been in space have been women. In addition to gender, age could also be a selection factor— Hopkins pointed out that research shows “older people tend to be less susceptible to cancer induced by radiation,” which is important because of cosmic radiation.

While some experts are focused on how we get to Mars, others—like Adam Chodorow, a professor at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law—are interested in what we do once we arrive. Chodorow’s remarks explored … taxes in space. That may seem like a dull departure from conversations about space missions, but taxation on Mars is a much livelier topic than you might expect. Quoting the beloved and recently departed Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock on Star Trek, Chodorow pointed out: “We’re supposed to live long and prosper [in space].” And from his perspective, “as long as we’re talking about prospering, we’re talking about taxes.” (For more, read Chodorow's Future Tense piece on Martian colonists and taxes.)

Chodorow’s comments anticipated themes that emerged in the final panel discussion, which was devoted to space law, bureaucracy, and entrepreneurship. The United States has “kind of owned space for a long time,” said Richard DalBello of Virgin Galactic, a commercial space company that, among other things, is investing in space tourism. “We’ve had a good 20–30 years where we were just completely dominant in space.” But that is changing.

Moderator Patric Verrone, a former writer/producer for the late, beyond-great Futurama, asked: “Let’s assume we’re close to actually going out there to Mars. … Once we get out there, what law governs?” The answer, for Henry Hertzfeld of George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute, is that several treaties already spell out appropriate behavior in space. However, DalBello noted, those international agreements were implemented before serious efforts to do business in space began. In 1967, when the Outer Space Treaty was signed, no one was thinking about commercialization. Regulations that were “built for operation in and near Earth are being applied in ways that are uneven,” he said. For instance, he said, he thinks that it “doesn’t make sense” that a person or company can’t “own” an asteroid.

Changing the rules to open space up to commerce isn’t just a matter of passing new laws in the United States, of course. It will require international cooperation—and that may be the trickiest part. “The cultural differences of how different societies handle space” could hinder a space economy, said Jeffrey Manber, the managing director of the space-services firm NanoRacks. Poor understanding between international partners “slows us down as much as red tape.”

Plait summed up the day nicely: “Going to Mars means doing a hell of a lot more than going to Mars.”

You can watch the full event on New America’s website.

Why Selina’s Daughter Is the Best Character on Veep

Torie Bosch — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 12:32:00 GMT

Veep, the fourth season of which begins on HBO Sunday evening, is a deeply cynical show. In Veep’s Washington, D.C., the corridors of power are filled with bored narcissists who speak of their convictions only when forced by political exigencies to abandon them. For instance, in Season 2, then-Vice President Selina Meyer (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) is caught off guard when the president proclaims that he is pro-life, and Meyer's presumptive presidential opponents scramble to claim their positions on abortion. Forced to say where she comes down on the issue, she frantically turns to her ghostwritten memoir, hoping that its pages might contain an acceptable answer. To her and her team’s dismay, she finds only gobbledygook.

In the new season, Selina has ascended to the Oval Office, after the former president resigned in order to spend more time with his suicidal wife. But in some ways, Veep is more cynical than ever—the show portrays her new position as so precarious that she is mostly as ineffective as commander-in-chief as she was as VP. So it’s significant that there is one undersung character who has worked to maintain her idealism, no matter how futilely: Catherine Meyer, Selina’s daughter. Catherine, who is played marvelously by Sarah Sutherland, suffers much hilarious, casual mistreatment at the hands of her distracted mother. And her beleaguered optimism has made her perhaps the best character on Veep.

Catherine endures indignity after indignity. Early in the show, after a lifetime of insisting that Catherine couldn’t have a dog, Selina decides to adopt one in order to soften her image—but then ridicules the pup her daughter selects. Later, Selina ruins Catherine’s 21^st birthday party by turning down the music so that she can conduct budget negotiations. During Season 3, Selina, Catherine, and Selina’s ex film an awkward, staged cooking scene for a TV interview—but it’s quickly evident that her parents have forgotten she’s a vegetarian. Rather than tell her parents herself, she asks her mother’s right-hand man to pass along the message. “I’m not going to sacrifice my morals for her career any more,” she tells another one of her mother’s staffers, right before eating roast chicken. This is Catherine: meekly attempting to stand up for herself before capitulating.

Catherine exudes a defeated sincerity. She knows better than to be earnest—she is not deluded about how Washington and her mother really work. Nevertheless, she’s excited to tell a journalist, played by Allison Janney, about a college class she is taking in which the students “sort of debate current issues through movement.” It’s the kind of insight into Catherine’s life that we rarely get from this show, since Selina tends to deflect details about Catherine that don’t directly pertain to her. But she remains loyal to her mother, even punching a protester who gets too close. And when Selina goes almost catatonic with fear before officially announcing her presidential campaign, Catherine is the only one who can snap her out of it.

Another recurring theme in Veep is the public’s distaste for Catherine, and vice versa. (After one forced media appearance, she says, “This is really nice, working together as a family. I actually enjoyed that gun show, you know, once I got used to all the regular people and how fat they were.”)

Catherine has accepted that she serves at the pleasure of Selina, whether she’s vice president, president, or a senator. Sure, she is resentful when she finds out that she’s being sent make an appearance on MTV, which, she reminds us, no one watches anymore. “I’m starting to feel like you’re hiding me,” she tells one staffer.

In Season 4, Catherine, who seems to have graduated from college, is determined to help her mother’s campaign, but the media don’t seem to like her any more than they do Selina. “The press doesn’t take me seriously because I don’t have a role here. I need a core role,” Catherine pleads.

Selina is game, but sadly, her numbers guy, Ken, later announces, “I think that Catherine is a valuable asset, and daughter. But her likability index is shallow.” Selina is briefly appalled that he polled her daughter’s popularity—and then convinced by the numbers. “She’s going to have to be told, gently, of course. Who’s doing to do that?” Selina asks.

Not her mother, of course. Ken breaks the news, suggesting to her that she act more friendly. But after crying just a bit, Catherine soldiers on: She submits to a makeover, during which her mother tries to teach her a basic insincere D.C. smile, and later gamely, if awkwardly, appears at a kids’ event. She could quit and leave her mother behind—and Selina might even welcome that, given her daughter’s “shallow” “likability index.” But though Catherine knows Selina’s flaws and Washington’s cruelty better than anyone, she is idealistic and resilient (without the sad masochism of Selina's bag man Gary). So as the cynicism of Veep’s vision of politics continues to escalate, Catherine is a rare bright spot. Take the way she corrects her mother when Selina brags to her team that Catherine “turned around” her college film society: “I transformed it, Mom.”

MTV’s True Life Shows Slut-Shaming in Action, and It’s Nauseating

Torie Bosch — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 16:32:28 GMT

Only one of MTV’s best three shows remains on the air. Daria left us long ago, and the gem Rich Girls lasted just one season. But True Life soldiers on. True Life launched in 1998 and its format hasn’t changed: Each hourlong episode addresses a theme in young people’s lives, from the trivial (“I Have a Summer Share”) to the serious (“I’m Placing My Baby for Adoption”). It’s voiceover-free, letting the shows’ subjects carry the narrative weight. New episodes air only sporadically, but Monday night’s installment—True Life: I’m Being Slut-Shamed—demonstrated that the trusty old show remains strong.

The title pretty much sums it up: The episode examined three young women who were facing social or familial pressure to change the way they dress and behave. The conclusion, that slut-shaming is bad, seems obvious, but the show demonstrates just how cruel people can be to a woman they have deemed loose. Case in point: Della.

In the clip below, Della, a beautiful 23-year-old who spends most of her segments with her eyes cast down, is meeting with her two “best friends,” Clint and Jason. She slept with one of them three years ago, another a few months ago—and since that fling, the two men appear to have treated her in a disgusting manner. They take every opportunity to stake the moral high ground. “I did not spend 12 months in Afghanistan for you to dress like that,” one scolds her after pulling her aside at a party.

But it’s worse when they gang up on her. “They say a man can have sex with a hundred woman and he’s a legend. Now, a woman has sex with a hundred men, and she’s a slut.” Normally that statement comes from one pointing out the hypocrisy. Nope. Not here. “That’s not even a saying. It’s a scientific fact,” his friend chimes in.

It’s truly amazing that not one but two people thought that it would be a good idea to act this way on television. The most likely explanation: They believe that they are wholly in the right, and the audience will sympathize with them about the burden of having a slatternly slut as a friend. Jon Ronson might disagree, but it seems that they deserve the shame that should be coming their way right about now.

A Tale of Two Jobs Plans

Torie Bosch — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 18:38:00 GMT

It may not have the gravitas of The American President, but Dave is still among the best Washington movies of the ‘90s. The charming comedy stars Kevin Klein as a presidential look-alike thrust into the real Oval Office when the commander in chief becomes incapacitated. The earnest Dave is meant to be a puppet for callous politicos, but seizes his opportunity to improve the country he loves—including a bold, ambitious plan to give a job to every American who wants one. That story line parallels the new House of Cards season: In Episode 2, evil President Frank Underwood unleashes a similar plan.

Each announces his job proposal in front of media, with the first lady looking on proudly. But while the outlines are the same, the details diverge. Dave is soaked in daylight, while Underwood is dark. Dave speaks off the cuff, surprising everyone, while Underwood is scripted, down to the harsh line, “You are entitled to nothing.”

Despite the two decades between them, though, Dave and House of Cards come from eras that look a lot alike. According to Pew, public trust in Washington in the early ’90s and today (well, February 2014) is roughly the same—about one-quarter of Americans have faith in the government. Unemployment rates are similar, too—in 1993, it was 6.9 percent, and the average in 2014 was 6.2.

But the contrast between the sunny and selfless Dave and the dark and selfish Frank suggests that pessimism might be more status quo now. After all, House of Cards can even make a jobs program seem sinister.

Keith Olbermann Is a Smug Elitist. But He Wasn’t Entirely Wrong About Penn State.

Torie Bosch — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 23:07:36 GMT

What kind of jerk criticizes students who raise money for kids with cancer?

Keith Olbermann makes no secret of the disgust he harbors for Penn State in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child abuse scandal; in January, he declared the NCAA and PSU “the worst in sports.” His well-documented disdain for the institution is probably what inspired a Penn Stater to mention him Sunday in a proud tweet about the 2015 Penn State Dance Marathon, an annual fundraiser (known on campus as THON) that raises money for children with cancer.

“We Are!” refers to the Nittany Lion chant “We are … Penn State.” And Four Diamonds—an organization that helps families pay for cancer treatment, funds research, and more—is the recipient of the THON money.

Olbermann responded to the “We are” tweet with one word: “…Pitiful.”

Soon Penn State students and others were attacking him, and he was hitting right back.

The pompous, elitist tirade earned him a suspension from ESPN. (Olbermann, if you’re wondering, went to Cornell—ever heard of it?) As a Penn State alumna who knows the difference between your and you’re, I’m pleased to see him get spanked on this one. But I also think that he wasn’t entirely wrong to roll his eyes at attempts to use THON to deflect criticism about the university.

THON is billed as “the largest student-run philanthropy in the world.” Groups and organizers spend the fall semester and first month of the spring semester preparing for it. On designated “canning” weekends, clubs, Greek organizations, and other clusters of students fan out from State College, Pa., to stand at street corners and collect money. At the main event, held this past weekend, more than 700 students serve as “dancers” who go 46 hours without sitting or sleeping. The idea, as I understand it, is to give the dancers a taste of the pain that kids with cancer endure.

It’s a noble goal. But when I was on campus, as THON got closer each year, the scent of self-congratulations grew stronger. The THON slogan is FTK—“for the kids.” In my more cynical moments, I sometimes thought that it should be “FTT”—“for the T-shirt.”

In the Deadspin comments, another alum put it nicely:

THON had great results, but to me it always seemed to serve as a vessel for fraternities, sororities, and those that crave attention to pat themselves on the back. There are a lot of people who participate selflessly, but the most vocal element are those that want the attention for “doing a great thing.” To boot, most of the fundraising doubles as a social/ pledge event for a lot of the greeks. TL; DR - great results, questionable means.

The results are great, and many of the participants are entirely sincere. But still, some students, especially Greeks, use it to excuse a lot of things: You can’t criticize fraternities—we raise money for kids with cancer!

It’s unfair for Olbermann to condemn the entire university because of the child sex abuse scandal (or because a few students on Twitter made grammatical mistakes that are widely accepted on the platform). Though the campus culture went too far in worshipping football, the ones to blame for the abuse are Jerry Sandusky and the handful of men who shielded him—including, yes, Joe Paterno. I railed about my alma mater’s moral hypocrisy after the scandal broke, and I remain furious about it. But it’s also illogical and disingenuous for Penn Staters to use THON as a shield against criticism. What did the original tweeter expect from Olbermann? I can’t imagine that she genuinely thought he would say, “You’re right. I’ve been unjust all along.”

Despite his presumably ESPN-mandated apologetic tweet, I doubt that Olbermann will emerge from his suspension with a greater respect for the school. And he’s right not to change his mind based on a fundraiser.

The Decline and Fall of the Backstreet Boys

Torie Bosch — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 17:22:00 GMT

In the opening scene of the new warts-and-all Backstreet Boys documentary, the former heartthrobs are hiking through the woods. A.J. McLean, the former bad boy, is straggling, and the others shout at him to hurry up. “This is really shitty for my knees,” he moans.

Backstreet Boys: Show ’Em What You’re Made Of is filled with pain—both physical and psychological. Two decades of harmonizing and synchronized dancing have battered the erstwhile boys. The documentary follows them as they record the 2013 album In a World Like This and prepare for their20th-anniversary tour. That’s right, 20th anniversary: The group was assembled back in 1992 by Lou Pearlman, then an Orlando blimp magnate and now a disgraced, imprisoned Ponzi schemer. The guys spent several years learning to dance, finding their sound, and promoting themselves at schools across the country before they finally became famous in Europe in the mid-’90s. In the United States, their heyday was approximately 1999–2002, and then “Kinda out of nowhere, it just stopped.” But despite Kevin Richardson’s brief departure from the group in 2006—he later returned—the Backstreet Boys never broke up. They range in age from 35-40, but they will always be boys.

Backstreet Boys: Show ’Em What You’re Made Of, which is for sale on iTunes and Amazon, is filled with conflict and resentment and complicated affection. The boys fight over who gets to sing what part (a longstanding struggle, apparently; Howie Dorough speaks with bitterness about how he was originally the lead singer for the group but was shoved aside after they began working with producers like Max Martin). They grapple with Brian Littrell’s failing voice. In a thread that mirrors some recent Blink-182 drama, they suspect one another of not working hard enough, of not being sufficiently committed. But when tempers get too hot, you can see that at least some of them have invested in therapy: “How about speaking from a place of love instead of anger?” Kevin suggests calmly when Nick Carter erupts at Brian in a meeting.

Their professional and personal lives having been entwined for so long, they know one another in that cutting way siblings do—able to home in on one other’s worst insecurities. When discussing A.J.’s substance abuse, Howie says, “A.J. wanted to be this bad boy so badly. I think in his own mind he thought he was rock ‘n’ roll, not realizing that he was in a boy band.”

While watching the documentary, I felt a little guilt. The Backstreet Boys were the men in my teenage life. I so adored them that I wrote pages of terrible fan fiction about them. But around the time I got my first real boyfriend, my ardor cooled. The pictures came off the walls; my fan fiction site collected virtual dust. I had moved on, just like millions of other fickle young things. In my mind, they were two-dimensional—they were characters I could cast in fantasies about being loved in a sweet, simple way. When I didn’t need their bright pop or nonthreatening good looks any more, I discarded them and tried to keep my former fandom a secret. (That is, until I went on a Backstreet Boys cruise in 2013. I was briefly in their presence. It was overwhelming.)

As a 15-year-old, I thought I “knew” the boys. I remembered their birthdays, their favorite colors, the fake-personal factoids they shared in interviews. I couldn’t have imagined that the real Kevin knew how to say “Can you give me a blow job?” in German—a souvenir of their early success in Germany.

But even if you won’t admit to bopping along to “I Want It That Way,” Backstreet Boys: Show ’Em What You’re Made Of is worth the watch for the way it portrays the music industry’s cruelty and fickleness.

How Will Human Ingenuity Handle a Warming Planet? A Future Tense Event Recap.

Torie Bosch — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:26:38 GMT

Sometimes it seems like climate change discussions are stuck in the ’90s. We’re still having many of the same debates: Is it real? Are our children doomed to a Mad Max-esque future? Where is Captain Planet when you need him?

It’s time to switch up the dialogue. That was the message of a Jan. 15 Future Tense event held at New America in Washington, D.C. At “How Will Human Ingenuity Handle a Warming Planet?” speakers focused on the ways that the top-down approach to “solving” climate change can exacerbate existing inequalities and overlook or stifle innovation. They also explored the surprising side effects of climate change on the military, business, and international relations.

The word of the day may have been governance, particularly in the context of promoting and permitting ideas that can build community resilience and increase access to food and energy—which are vital to both mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.

University of Michigan research scientist and Nigerian Utibe Effiong blamed poor governance for his home country’s struggles with climate change—and inability to effectively address it. For example, Nigeria is one of the biggest oil producers in the world, but doesn’t have a refinery, which leads to high energy costs and inconsistent energy supplies.

One problem is that governments worldwide tend to silo problems, instead of thinking holistically. Lisa Margonelli, author of Oil on the Brain: Petroleum's Long, Strange Trip to Your Tank, discussed governments’ habit of separating issues that ought to be connected: “What we’ve come up with is we have special poverty initiatives and we have green initiatives.” In the United States, she said, green subsidies—for instance, for electric cars—“are particularly going toward the wealthy.” This is especially true in California, as Margonelli discussed this in a Slate piece in September. She proposes that we “solve for poverty and for climate issues at the same time.”

That’s a challenge, especially when much of the discussion around conquering climate change focuses on keeping developing countries from accessing energy and reaching new levels of prosperity.

“If you look at sustainability and climate change discourse, what counts as sustainability in poor countries amounts to a shadow of the kind of economic and standard of living aspirations of the world,” noted Dan Sarewitz, co-director of Arizona State’s Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes.

Todd Moss of the Center for Global Development agreed and said that “until you can run an iron or smelter on a solar panel,” you can’t expect people to live carbon-free lives.

Several speakers were excited about the potential of local level innovation although, as Sarewitz noted, international governance tends to be skeptical about “context-created solutions.” That’s a shame, because as Nikki Silvestri, a food systems and climate solutions advocate, pointed out, community-based initiatives—like using bodegas as hubs for providing information after a natural disaster—can serve as case studies that can be duplicated on a wider scale. Yet at times, such initiatives end up mired in bureaucratic red tape. “There’s something to be said for just do it,” she told the audience. “And then once you see what policies and regulations you bump against, that opens a real-time, nontheoretical conversation about what policies you need in place to allow innovation to flourish.”

Context is critical, as climate change effects aren’t uniform—a mistake that many make, said Rimjhim Aggarwal, a sustainability scientist at Arizona State. “The local impacts are very different in different places,” she said, so decision-makers in, say, her native India need to listen to farmers with valuable local knowledge. By doing so, they not only improve their plans, but they “empower that poor person, because now he is being valued.”

That strategy—empowering the poor and valuing their knowledge—isn’t a common one; much of the time, officials speak down to poor people and people of color about climate change, Aggarwal and Silvestri said. Silvestri noted that a study conducted by Green for All, where she served as executive director until recently, indicated that 70 percent of minority voters would favor a candidate who planned to tackle climate change.

In addition to discussing the social-equality questions that climate change asks us to ponder, the event’s speakers examined some of the unexpected business and military side effects of a warming planet. Rear Adm. Jonathan White spoke about how the U.S. Navy is facing three major climate change–related challenges: a melting Arctic, which opens up new waterways; rising sea levels by naval bases; and more natural disasters which may require Navy recovery efforts. White acknowledged that it may be surprising for some people to hear members of the military talk seriously about climate change, but the Navy, more so than most organizations, is a firsthand witness to the new Arctic. He noted that Navy submarines have been visiting the Arctic for 40 years, and the changes are undeniable. They’re working with partner nations to share information and to plan for a new planet.

The moral of the day is that while climate change presents a challenge for the world, there are opportunities as well: to empower communities and developing nations, to strengthen global ties, and even to make some money, as McKenzie Funk, author of Windfall: The Booming Business of Global Warming, pointed out. In reporting his book, Funk found that Israelis have found potential profits in desalination and snowmaking; Greenland is hoping that new discoveries of new mineral reserves, made possible by retreating glaciers, could allow it to afford independence; and insurance companies have started paying for-profit firefighters to protect assets from wildfires.

Whatever happens with climate change, “There is no going back to past states,” Brad Allenby, president’s professor of sustainable engineering at Arizona State, told the audience. “We live on a terraformed planet. The planet has become a design space. The human is becoming a design space.” So the question is, how will we design our future as the world warms? Unfortunately, no one has an easy answer to that—not even Captain Planet.

To watch the full event, visit the New America website.

Also in Slate:

“There’s No Place Like Home: Science, information, and politics in the Anthropocene,” by Brad Allenby and Dan Sarewitz

“The Carbon Diet Fallacy: Dealing with climate change is not like trying to lose weight,” by Lisa Margonelli

“Pinot Noir Is Wine’s Polar Bear: The opportunities and challenges that climate change presents to vintners,” by Carrie Miller

“Hold the Cookies, Save the Planet: Everyone knows meat is bad for the environment. But so is an ingredient commonly found in junk food,” by Ruth DeFries

“Why Climate Change Isn’t a Sputnik Moment: Military technology can’t innovate us out of this one,” by Sharon E. Burke and Sharon Squassoni

Using Science Fiction to Create a Better Tomorrow: A Future Tense Event Recap

Torie Bosch — Fri, 03 Oct 2014 21:17:30 GMT

Are robot babysitters ethical? Will the future of the Internet look like You’ve Got Mail? How can we use science fiction to inspire scientists?

On Oct. 2, Future Tense and Issues in Science and Technology hosted “Can We Imagine Our Way to a Better Future?” at the National Academies in Washington, D.C., to discuss how science fiction can help us create a 21^st century—and 22^nd, and 23^rd—that we and our descendants can be proud of. The event was inspired by Hieroglyph: Stories and Visions for a Better Future, a new sci-fi anthology intended to bring scientists and writers together to imagine big, bold technologies. Edited by Ed Finn, the director of Arizona State University’s Center for Science and the Imagination, and Kathryn Cramer, Hieroglyph is a sort of antidote to the dystopian fiction that rules the current sci-fi scene. It was inspired by a conversation sci-fi great Neal Stephenson and ASU President Michael Crow had at a Future Tense event long ago, in 2011. (Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and ASU.)

The event was delightfully nerdy, optimistic and creative yet pragmatic, featuring speakers from universities, NASA, DARPA, the SyFy Channel, the Washington Post, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and even Futurama, plus sci-fi writers Cramer, Stephenson, Ted Chiang, Elizabeth Bear, Karl Schroeder, Kathleen Ann Goonan, Madeline Ashby, Lee Konstantinou, and Vandana Singh. The discussion ranged from the ethics of robot babysitters and space travel to the difference between “democratic science via grassroots” and “government-directed global cooperation.” The ideas debated largely fell into four categories: the role money plays in innovation, the policy challenges of new technologies, the ways people are affected by and can affect advances, and the challenges and triumphs of imagination.

The money

Real innovation doesn’t come from “small, ragtag groups” or even from solitary geniuses. It comes from corporations, argued Stephenson in his opening remarks. In other words, innovation requires money and investment—whether it’s public or private.

Companies’ influence over technologies can come at a cost. For one thing, the entrepreneurial world’s recent embrace of “fail quickly” may be shortsighted. Give up on big ideas too soon, and they’ll never come to fruition, Stephenson warned.

Another warning came from sci-fi writer Lee Konstantinou, whose short story in Hieroglyph discussed drones and the Internet, offered a terrifying vision: The future Internet could look a lot like the America Online of yesteryear, with high walls erected by corporations to keep customers in place. Even more disturbingly, Vandana Singh, who in addition to being a sci-fi writer is a theoretical physicist, noted that the pursuit of profit has helped create today’s environmental mess. We aren’t living in the Anthropocene—the age in which humankind shapes the climate; rather, she said, “it's the Capitalocene.” Money and investment are changing the Earth. But maybe technology offers some hope here, too: While discussing neurological technologies, which her Hieroglyph short story “Covenant” explores, Elizabeth Bear noted one possibility of “a process that can remove sociopathic tendencies. Well, there goes Wall Street.”

The policy

Money isn’t the only factor that can gunk up technological revolutions.

“Where I’ve seen law and policy go horribly wrong is because they get frustrated talking to technologists … then you get tremendously bad laws,” Dan Kaufman of DARPA said. Ryan Calo of the University of Washington also noted that it can be difficult to have “the right stakeholders at the table” to write a law. These policy challenges have real-world ramifications that could, say, delay Amazon’s grand plan to unleash delivery drones.

Science fiction offers one way to help bridge that gap. But as Daniel Sarewitz of Arizona State’s Consortium for Science Policy and Outcomes said, “We haven't yet gotten very good at using narrative to affect how we make policy.”

The people

But we are better at using narrative to help explain technology to individuals.

“The most powerful tool we've had for surveillance policy is 1984,” argued Kevin Bankston of New America’s Open Technology Institute. “It helps everyone understand what's at stake.” When you say “Big Brother,” even somebody who isn’t comfortable with technology knows what you’re talking about.

This is important because, as Kaufman put it, “Technology is not a thing that should be happening to you. Technology should be participatory.” That holds true whether or not you know what PGP is, for instance. A healthy, population-wide debate about the introduction of new technologies is particularly important when it comes to personal autonomy. Bear asked, for example, whether a person suffering from depression could be forced to undergo a neurological treatment that might make them feel better, or whether the “neuroatypical” could be required to bring their brains in line with the norm: “Our concept of personal autonomy is not actually based on ‘Well, you’ll thank me for it later,’ unless you’re parenting. ”

Gender plays an enormous role in many of these discussions. As Bear and bioethicist Jonathan Moreno discussed, mental health was used in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries as an excuse to hospitalize women for vague problems like “hysteria.” But technology could also offer a shortcut around some current gender problems: Cramer noted that today, mothers are often criticized, even arrested, for letting a child play outside alone. Perhaps a babysitting robot could help. Of course, she said, we could also “just say actually, the kid’s not going to die, why do we need a robot?” But making a robot that can hold a child’s hand while crossing the street might be easier than fighting society’s gender roles.

The imagination
“You can’t invent something that someone didn’t imagine,” said Stofan, distilling the major takeaway of the day: Great sci-fi has the power to inspire scientists and technologists to create a world we’re excited by.

The dystopian (think 1984) can be powerful in helping us avoid a future that makes us wince. Konstantinou said that he “couldn’t help but include … a dystopian vision of the Internet” in his story.

But some sci-fi today has its shortcomings. Patric Verrone, who wrote for Futurama, among other shows, said, “Science fiction is now about discussing internal things, rather than sending skyscrapers into space” or otherwise dreaming big and bold.

One possible constraint to this kind of big thinking could be technology itself. Chiang said at one point, “Our thinking is partially being done by algorithms now. How much of our cognition do we want to cede to software?” A corollary to that is: How much of our imagination do we want to cede to software? Algorithms even create fiction and help companies like Netflix decide what content to invest in. Furthermore, Karl Schroeder noted, “Sci-fi never imagines that we can improve the way we make decisions.”

Just as we may want to consider the subtle ways software could be stymieing creativity, we should also be wary of constraining ourselves by today’s version of the future. “I don’t think technology is ever used the way we think” it will be, said Kaufman. For instance, DARPA created Siri for the military, “to do scheduling, but it turns out we like to talk to our computer and have it tell us wrong things a lot. So, you’re welcome.”

Perhaps the most wonderful thing about science fiction, though, is how it allows for ambiguity in discussing new technologies and the conundrums they can create. “I see my job as having ethical arguments with myself in public,” Bear said. Singh echoed that thought: “Don’t judge my morals by my stories. That is the beauty of fiction.”

To watch the event in its entirety, visit the New America website.

More on Project Hieroglyph and the role of science fiction on Slate:

“Innovation Starvation, the Next Generation: Humankind has lots of great ideas for the future. We need people to carry them out,” by Neal Stephenson
“Covenant,” a short story from Hieroglyph by Elizabeth Bear
“Don’t Diss Dystopias: Sci-fi’s warning tales are as important as its optimistic stories,” by Ramez Naam
“Only Science Fiction Can Save Us! What sci-fi gets wrong about income inequality,” by Lee Konstantinou
“The Day It All Ended,” a short story from Hieroglyph by Charlie Jane Anders
“Meeting My Protagonist: When I wrote a novel about a Nigerian space program, I didn’t expect it to be so close to the truth,” by Deji Bryce Olukotun
“Welcome to the War of Tomorrow: How Futurama’s writers depicted asymmetrical warfare,” by Patric M. Verrone
“The Dystopian City and Urban Policy: Science fiction has inspired scientists and political activists, but it should be an inspiration for municipal governments too,” by Annalee Newitz
“Almost Humane: What sci-fi can teach us about our treatment of prisoners of war,” by Joelle Renstrom
“Forget the Tricorder: Why gadgets aren’t the coolest part of science fiction,” by Joey Eschrich
“The Inspiration Drought: Why our science fiction needs new dreams,” by Ed Finn

Demons Are Real

Torie Bosch — Thu, 02 Oct 2014 13:08:00 GMT

The horror movie Inner Demons makes an addict’s possession literal. In the film—which will be released Friday by IFC Midnight in theaters and on video on demand—Carson (Lara Vosburgh), a teenage heroin user from a religious family, becomes the subject of Step Inside Recovery, an Intervention-esque reality show. She’s followed by a three-member film crew that includes Jason (Morgan McClellan), a naive production assistant working his first Step Inside Recovery episode. Jason winces at his new colleagues’ easy gallows humor, and he sympathetically hands Carson a tissue when her arm is bleeding after she shoots up. As Carson tells people that her real problem isn’t drugs—it’s that she’s possessed by a devil that can only be sedated by opiates—Jason becomes the ultimate enabler.

What’s most interesting about Inner Demons is not its depiction of occult spookiness, but its exploration of something much more real and frightening: reality TV. Director Seth Grossman worked on eight episodes of Intervention during seasons 10 through 12, and though he told me he was brought aboard Inner Demons after producers had developed the concept, he makes the reality-show tensions feel urgent and not a little agonizing. When should producers step in and stop something that’s happening in front of the camera? Is the show entertainment or education? How does the crew cope psychologically with the terrible things they see on every shoot? When can you trust an addict? What’s the best way to help? Inner Demons hews closely to the Intervention ethos: No one can help an addict if he or she does not participate honestly and earnestly in recovery; no one should help an addict continue along a path to destruction.

Intervention ran for 13 seasons on A&E, concluding in 2013—but now it’s slated to return in 2015. Its new home is the Lifetime property LMN, but as an Intervention obsessive, I take heart in the fact that the reboot will be made by the same production company. Most importantly, interventionists Jeff Van Vonderen and Candy Finnigan are coming back for more. The show has followed addicts of all stripes: people who lean on gambling, heroin, painkillers, anti-anxiety meds, anorexia, bath salts, meth, PCP, overeating, cocaine, and, of course, good old-fashioned alcohol. It’s heavy and scary at times, of course, but what made it feel so real is how funny a show it could be. When you have a loved one with a serious addiction or mental illness, the surreal, hilarious moments can be difficult to talk about with outsiders. Intervention’s embrace of the ridiculous made its depiction of addiction rich and empathetic.

An amazing meme of a moment in a Season 5 episode encapsulates the show’s dark humor: A young woman named Allison, her eyes flat but wild, her voice thick and buzzing, her lips gray, cackles “It’s like I’m walking on sunshine!” after huffing keyboard duster. Later, she literally wrestles with police officers; she enters treatment only after the interventionist and her family have her cat taken away. Cats are a recurring theme in Intervention; in another classic episode, an alcoholic named Laney agrees to enter rehab only if she can bring her cat, but she won’t fly with the feline—so she ends up taking a multiday trip across the country, in a limo, with her cat and the rehab director. She leaves rehab almost immediately after arriving, and filming stops—but according to Intervention’s end-of-episode update, she apparently found God while talking to the chauffeur on the drive home (again, cat in tow) and claimed that that helped her get sober.

These moments are funny and horrifying and nauseating and heartbreaking. And that’s the point. Intervention was—and, I hope, will again be— “great train-wreck entertainment while really contributing to the discourse on addiction as a disease,” as Grossman told me.

Inner Demons’ addict doesn’t have the bitter humor of Intervention at its best—Carson is too sad and tormented to offer up those moments of accidental hilarity. But it does offer a look at how the production team learned to celebrate seemingly terrible things. In Inner Demons, that plays out after the intervention, when the field producer excitedly phones a colleague: “Oh, it was great. She freaked out. She attacked her friend and tried to shove her letter down her friend’s throat. And she thinks she’s possessed! … You got your promo footage today.” It sounds callous—it is callous—but making a great show means people will watch, which means viewers will have a better understanding of addiction, in themselves or loved ones. Trying to untangle the altruism of education from the profit motives of any television show may be impossible.

Something similar happened during one of Grossman’s Intervention episodes, about a meth addict named Christina. “She believed that she had bugs that burrowed into her face, so she started getting needles to dig the bugs out of her face,” Grossman said. “And her mom … was like, ‘You don’t have bugs in your face! But if you’re going to do it, at least do it with clean needles’! Her mother would sterilize knitting needles with her lighter.” In the van after a day of shooting like that, Grossman told me, the crew would inevitably have to laugh about what they had witnessed. “It’s good TV, and I know that sounds terrible,” he said. “But it’s good TV, and it’s going to bring viewers to the program, and it’s going to show people that this is one of the terrible consequences of addiction.”

Inner Demons is driven in many ways by a familiar point of view about addiction delivered by every episode of Intervention: that there is always a reason. Something happened to make that innocent baby—there are always baby pictures—turn to substance abuse. Behind the scenes, there was “subtle institutional pressure” to find the reason why, according to Grossman, and that began before shooting, during pre-production. Was the subject sexually abused, neglected, traumatized by something in early childhood? A mere genetic predisposition toward addiction wasn’t enough—there had to be a story.

In Inner Demons, the field producer struggles to find the story. Carson’s father drank, her mother was religious, but there is nothing explosive in her history. At one point, the producer moans: “Nothing, nothing, nothing. I’ve been digging. … We can do parental neglect, but it’s not very sexy.” Hence her excitement at the demon storyline. Much better than parental neglect.

As an Intervention fan, I often found myself frustrated by that insistence that a precipitating event explained every addict’s choices. It made sense that Fabian turned to drugs: His childhood traumas included, among other things, his mentally ill mother’s habit of keeping jars containing her miscarried fetuses in the closet. But what about Chad, an unlikable addict whose No. 1 complaint seemed to be that his mother didn’t pay enough attention to him after his parents divorced? But to an addict, I came to realize, there’s always a reason, even if it’s not logical.

In both the show and the horror movie, the camera acts as a shield, letting the production team stay detached. Indeed, in Inner Demons, when the blood starts to flow, the field producer who was so excited about the possession storyline never puts down her camera. She clings to it, as though it could save her.

But in real life, cameras and jokes can’t keep the crew safe—which is why Intervention offered therapy to the production team. (The show paid for Grossman to see a therapist every other week while he worked on the show.) Intervention producers needed therapy because of the dangers of transference and reverse-transference—overidentifying with the addict, and the addict overidentifying with the crew. This is where Inner Demons shines: portraying the tangled relationship that develops between the young PA Jason and the addict Carson. At one point, she will only talk to him, not to anyone else on the crew; she says that no one else understands her. He wants to protect her—and that’s when things get dangerous.

The movie’s horror elements are a bit bland—new girl at a Catholic school with demon possession isn’t terribly novel. But the occult storyline serves mostly as a springboard for a portrait of the odd, predatory, empathetic relationship of reality show to subject, and it’s fascinating. “I almost wanted it to work without supernatural elements,” Grossman said. “Whether or not you see her turn into a demon, it’s a cautionary tale about the risks of believing an addict’s story.”

Can’t Get Enough Ebola Coverage? Read These Great Pandemic Novels.

Torie Bosch — Mon, 04 Aug 2014 17:13:14 GMT

On Tuesday, the second American suffering from Ebola will arrive in the United States for further treatment. Despite public assurances that Ebola is highly unlikely to spread in the United States, people are on edge. Angry Americans sent “nasty emails” and called the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to say “How dare you bring Ebola into the country!?” CDC Director Tom Frieden told the Associated Press. He added, “I hope that our understandable fear of the unfamiliar does not trump our compassion when ill Americans return to the U.S. for care.”

The fear isn’t of the entirely unfamiliar—many Americans first became acquainted with Ebola through Richard Preston’s 1994 best-seller The Hot Zone, a nonfiction book that became the basis for Outbreak. It is, however, irrational at this point: Despite the close-the-borders terror that is pervading social media, there is little evidence to suggest that Ebola could become a major problem in the United States. (Have you seen the scary-looking paper about pig-to-nonhuman-primate airborne Ebola that people are passing around? “[U]nless you’re sitting next to an Ebola-infected pig, seriously, airborne transmission of Ebola viruses isn’t a big concern,” microbiologist and infectious disease epidemiologist Tara C. Smith writes on her blog Aetiology.)

Unfortunately, Outbreak hasn’t aged terribly well. But if you enjoy scaring yourself with Ebola coverage, you should consider picking up some of these pandemic novels—which may make you want to bathe in hand sanitizer instead of saying “Bless you” the next time a passer-by sneezes in your direction.

Influenza
Flu-focused pandemic novels may be the scariest of all, because they feel the most realistic. The deadliest pandemic of all time, after all, was the 1918 Spanish flu. In Laura Kasischke’s In a Perfect World, a young stepmom is stranded with her charges, her husband stuck in Germany, as American health and order collapse. Peter Heller’s sparse The Dog Stars looks at an America nearly emptied out by the flu. And in Salvation City by Sigrid Nunez, a flu orphan is adopted by a religious family as society tries to rebuild.

Historical plagues
Geraldine Brooks’ excellent Year of Wonders: A Novel of the Plague, which is set in a 17^th-century English village, will make you grateful for modern hygiene and communication.

Zombie viruses
World War Z by Max Brooks, The Girl With All the Gifts by M.R. Carey, and I Am Legend by Richard Matheson all imagine contagions don’t just eat away at your brain—they make people eat brains.

Alien ailments
The Andromeda Strain, a classic by Michael Crichton, imagines that aliens aren’t just intelligent—they are crafty jerks.

Manmade pandemics

Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake trilogy looks at a world depopulated by a vicious, Ebola-like disease created by a mad scientist, while the new viruses of Paolo Bacigalpui’s The Windup Girl are just some of many man-invented problems plaguing Earth.

Reproductive plagues
World-ending diseases don’t have to kill victims immediately. They can also stop humanity from bringing forth new life. In Children of Men by P.D. James, women can no longer get pregnant; in The Testament of Jessie Lamb by Jane Rogers, a new disease kills any woman who becomes pregnant. Birth control never seemed so important.

* * *

But even if Ebola isn’t going to wrack the Western world, that doesn’t mean we should be flip about it. In a new piece for The New Yorker, Preston cautions, “People are wondering if the virus could spread to Europe or the United States, but the more immediate question is whether it could infect a whole lot more people in Africa.” Sometimes short-sighted self-interest is scarier than a plague—or a horror novel.

Braaaiiins

Torie Bosch — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 12:04:00 GMT

Most zombie stories follow the same formula: Brawny dudes use guns and makeshift weapons to protect nerds, women, and children from the ravenous dead and from other survivors. Yawn.

M.R. Carey’s The Girl With All the Gifts is a terrifying zombie novel, but not in the expected way. The real enemy here isn’t the walking dead or even the crafty parasite that rules them. It’s evolution.

The Girl With All the Gifts opens in Britain about a decade after a zombie apocalypse left small numbers of humans hiding from the undead. Lots of walking-dead stories in recent years have offered a biological explanation for the plague—for instance, 28 Days Later or Brad Pitt’s big-screen adaptation of World War Z, whose pandemic story line felt tacked on—but the science often takes a back seat to the flesh-eating. Carey switches the formula, spending much more time on the infection and humanity’s attempts to conquer it than on bloodbaths. The result is a story that makes your brain feel at least a little nibbled on.

The book’s monsters are steered by a mutant version of the fungus Ophiocordyceps unilateralis—which you may know as the parasite behind “zombie ants.” As the novel explains, an infected ant is hijacked and forced to “climb to the highest place it can reach—to a leaf fifty feet or more above the forest floor.” From there, the fungus bursts forth from the poor ant’s head in the form of a sporangium that allows “thousands of spores” to “spread for miles,” with the help of the wind.

Let that penetrate your innocent, free-willed mind. This actual fungus cements the ant to a plant. Its sporangium grows inside, and then explodes out of, the insect’s head.

Carey imagines the species-climbing Ophiocordyceps spilling over from infecting ants to humans. (In a nice touch, scientists in The Girl With All the Gifts screen a horrifying David Attenborough–narrated segment from Planet Earth to explain the cause of the zombie apocalypse to the laity.) For most of the infected, this means a pretty normal, albeit more scientific-sounding, zombiedom: the staggering, the biting, the quick infection turning a normal human into a cannibalistic shell. In Britain, at least, most of the remaining humans huddle in a fortified zone, where they are safe from the saliva-transmitted infection. They also don’t have to see the particularly gross zombies that, after infection takes hold, have fungus burst from their bodies. Pretty standard horror stuff.

But then something odd(er) happens. Military excursions into zombie-infested turf begin finding normal-looking children who can speak, learn, and think, but are nevertheless infected with Ophiocordyceps. Rounded up into a lockdown boarding school, the infected kids live in individual cells, leaving only for weekly shower-and-grub sessions (and yes, those are literal grubs), and for class, where they are strapped and locked into chairs. It is there that we meet Melanie, the girl with all the gifts, who excels in the classroom and who has a macabre sense of humor: When two handlers come to load her into a chair—one points a gun at her while the other secures her—she jokes, “Don’t worry, I won’t bite.” They don’t laugh, because a single whiff of human is all it takes to whip the gentle-seeming girl into a feeding frenzy that she cannot control.

But bright, eager Melanie, who doesn’t quite understand the nature of her disease, is incapable of turning bitter; the highlight of her life is Helen Justineau, the kindest of the rotating cast of teachers whose job it is to see how much they can teach these sort-of humans. It’s like Roald Dahl’s Matilda but with zombies: A teacher bonds with a precocious, cheerful child with amazing abilities who hasn’t been soured by the cruelty of her circumstances.

The most intriguing character is Caroline Caldwell, a researcher dedicated to finding a cure for Ophiocordyceps. Caldwell digs into the brains of Melanie’s classmates without remorse, because she sees their chatter and smiles and attempts at emotional connection as pure evolutionary chicanery—tricks the fungus plays to facilitate its spread. When a colleague balks at sawing into a child’s head, Caldwell scolds her: “Please remember, Doctor, that the subject presents as a child but is actually a fungal colony animating a child’s body. There’s no place for sentiment here.”

Caldwell is motivated by her desire to save humanity, of course. But there’s also a chip on her shoulder: During the start of the Breakdown, as it’s called, the country’s top scientists were sent out into infected zones in two buses kitted out with the latest in protective technology. Humanity’s hopes went with them on their field-research journey. (This is one spot where Carey chooses plot over logic. Why send all of your best men and women out into the horde?) Caldwell just missed the cut—meaning that she was the top scientist left when both vehicles vanished.

If she can’t find the answers that eluded her colleagues, she thinks, no one can. That’s quite a burden, and quite an ego. “If the road to knowledge was paved with dead children,” Carey writes of Caldwell, “she’d still walk it and absolve herself afterwards.”

When the military complex where Caldwell, Miss Justineau, and Melanie all live is compromised—right before Melanie’s about to lose her brain to science—the three, along with a couple of military men, must band together (with heaps of suspicion on all sides) to try to find their way to another outpost of humanity. And along the way, they discover just how clever Ophiocordyceps really is—and how long the game is it’s really playing. I don’t want to spoil anything here, but suffice it to say that the zombies are a means, not an end.

Miss Justineau and Caldwell do battle throughout the novel, with Miss Justineau’s compassion and eventual love for Melanie contrasting with Caldwell’s hunger for the girl’s brain. (Who’s the zombie again?) During one argument, Caldwell rants:

You should ask yourself … why you’re so keen on thinking of me as the enemy. If I make a vaccine, it might cure people like Melanie, who already have a partial immunity to Ophiocordyceps. It would certainly prevent thousands upon thousands of other children from ending up the way she has. Which weighs the most, Helen? Which will do the most good in the end? Your compassion, or my commitment to my work? Or could it be that you shout at me and disrespect me to stop yourself from having to ask questions like that?

The Girl With All the Gifts is crossover horror at its best: a book that can appeal to readers like me who are interested in the altered social dynamics of a collapsed society, but who are inclined to skim over lengthy descriptions of dull, gory battles. (This is a lazy reading practice that, on more than one occasion, has left me confused, only to realize that I missed the death of a main character.) There’s bloodshed and some battle, sure, but they take a back seat to mind-bending questions of research ethics in the midst of crisis, the clash of pragmatism and humanity, and the idea of individual free will.

It’s a welcome shift from the focus of many zombie stories. While the cinematic World War Z, 28 Days Later, and even The Walking Dead (remember the brief visit to the CDC?) offer glosses of science and lip service about ethics, their primary attraction is action. As is often the case with action storytelling, the moral conundrums in these tales are straightforward, dull—there’s almost always a clear right and wrong.

Carey’s complicated novel, however, makes it impossible to pick a side: Caldwell or Justineau? Melanie or humanity? Is Caldwell’s quest for answers truly scientifically pure, or is it just another example of an animal’s innate drive to protect itself from extinction? The Girl With All the Gifts turns eating brains from the usual empty-calorie snack into a full, complex, palate-challenging meal.

---

The Girl With All the Gifts by M.R. Carey. Orbit.

See all the pieces in this month’s Slate Book Review.
Sign up for the Slate Book Review monthly newsletter.

This Hilarious Ad Will Make You Want to Have Your Period

Torie Bosch — Wed, 18 Jun 2014 20:38:44 GMT

I hate to jinx it, but we may be living in a golden age of menstrual product advertising. The latest example is this video via Jezebel, which is an ad for HelloFlo, a company that sends customers all of their period needs in the mail each month, and also offers care packages. To pitch its $29.95 “period starter kit” for the newly (or about to be) menstrual, HelloFlo crafted an ad that both mocks period parties and kind of makes you want to have one, or at least have your period. Which is no small feat.

Do Robots Dream of FIFA? A Future Tense Event Recap.

Torie Bosch — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 18:53:36 GMT

Computers can trounce humans in Jeopardy! and chess, but robots—try as they may—are decidedly unathletic. Why is that?

On Thursday, June 12, just before the opening game of the 2014 World Cup, University of Pennsylvania professor Daniel D. Lee and some of his champion soccer robots visited the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C., to talk about the challenges, and purpose, of getting machines in the game.

The Future Tense event began with Lee—director of the GRASP (General Robotics Automation, Sensing, Perception) Lab at Penn—giving a brief presentation about robot soccer, and robotics more widely. Lee’s been involved with RoboCup, the robot soccer equivalent of the World Cup, since 2003. RoboCup’s stated goal is to have its championship machines play a competitive match with human World Cup winners by 2050, and while we’re still far from that goal, Lee says that the machines have improved tremendously. “When we started with robot soccer, it looked more like 5-year-old soccer … all the robots would kind of scamper after it,” he said. “The robot gets the ball, [but] they don’t know which direction the goal is, so they kind of randomly kick it. …”

According to Lee, there are three main ingredients to make a robot perform: perception, planning, and action. The robot has to perceive the problem, decide what to do about it, and then implement that plan. Humans involved with sports have to do something similar, Lee said: The difference between a good athlete and a sports-loving nerd is the ability to do all three of those elements, instead of just one or two of them.

All of this research has real purpose beyond having fun. Lee noted that robot soccer is a great way to get students enthused about robotics. Moreover, his lab has applied their robot soccer work to other robotics work that may be more applicable to daily life—like DARPA’s self-driving car competition in 2007 or the DARPA challenge to create humanoid robots that can help after disasters like Fukushima.

After Lee’s brief presentation, four of his Penn students helped him show off their bots for the crowd. They brought with them two Nao robots and two Darwin robots, all of which toddled around the stage, trying to find and kick a small orange ball. Lee knocked a couple of the robots down so that they could demonstrate their ability to get back up—and the crowd let out a bit of an “Awww.” As the machines bumped into one another, and as Lee and his students picked up wanderers to make sure that they didn’t fall off the stage, the audience laughed and took pictures.

When the demonstration ended, Slate executive editor and “Hang Up and Listen” host Josh Levin joined Lee for a brief discussion about robotics and sports. “We think of machines as being better than us in a lot of things—chess, Jeopardy!” Lee said. “Humans are still much better at something we consider natural,” like running. “There’s certain things that take you 20 years of school to learn that are easy for a machine to do.” Speaking of “natural” challenges, Lee says that future RoboCups may involve having robots play outside, where they’ll have to deal with variable lighting and uneven terrain.

For now, the robots are an adorable example of how technology still can’t best humans in everything. “People really are rooting for these guys and they want them to succeed,” Josh said, referring to the crowd’s enthusiasm for the machines. When the discussion ended, the big screen in the conference room turned to the first game of the (human) World Cup for a viewing party—but the audience members seemed more interested in taking pictures of themselves with the robots.

Read all of Slate's World Cup 2014 coverage.

Kermit the Frog and Michael Bluth: Kindred Spirits

Torie Bosch — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:16:00 GMT

For most of Muppets Most Wanted, Kermit has been replaced. Constantine, the world’s most dangerous frog, has traded places with him, sending him off to a Siberian gulag, merely by slapping a mole on our Muppet hero and slopping a little green cover-up on his own dastardly face. Upon his arrival at the Big House, Kermit’s fellow inmates realize right away that he isn’t the criminal mastermind. (Simply using the words “thank you” gives him away.) Kermit is positive that his fellow Muppets will notice the switcheroo, too, and he waits for them to rescue him. And yet they don’t come. His happy-go-lucky family of misfits, of the ones he comforts and cajoles and supports, fails to realize that he’s even gone.

This reminded me of a very similar failure from another dysfunctional clan: the Bluths. Specifically, during a Season 2 episode of Arrested Development, Michael, fed up with his family of ungrateful weirdos, flounces off to Phoenix with his son in tow. But when he calls home and asks for himself, pretending to be a doctor, it becomes clear that his kin have completely missed his act of protest. They didn’t even realize he’d left.

Unlikely though it may be, Michael Bluth and Kermit the Frog are kindred souls. In fact, most Muppet tales could be summed up as the story of a puppet-family who lost everything, and the one frog who tried to keep them all together.

Kermit and Michael are both the straight man, the calm one, the dependable one, the one who can reach into a maelstrom of bad ideas and figure out which could be put to good use. (Oh, and they both love to ride bikes.) Being the stalwart may be less fun than, say, dancing with chickens, or doing a chicken dance to mock someone’s cowardice. But someone has to do it, and each derives pleasure in seeing himself as the savior of the group.

But they are both less superior than they think.

Michael would have viewers think that were it not for his family, he would be at the rudder of a solvent, responsible, ethical business. But as we saw in Season 4 of Arrested Development, without them around to hold him back, he ends up no better than those he disdains, mooching off his son, playing at getting an online degree. He becomes a little Gob, a little Buster. For all his worship of that “sweet sting of sweat in your eyes,” he’s easily discouraged: He flees Phoenix, which he’s long held as a promised land, because he literally can’t stand the heat.

Kermit, too, isn’t quite the savvy businessfrog he might consider himself. As Bradley Diuguid explained on the theater site HowlRound, in a blog post titled “Why Kermit Is a Bad Producer”:

Kermit is a self-defeating nebbish in business matters. He’s always been put-upon, stressed, even introverted. That nerdiness is what makes him a great straight man, a sincere performer, and a deeply relatable personality. … [B]ut he’s just not a force in the room. He’s too easily discouraged when he’s told “no.”

Kermit is consistently positioned as a leader without delegating responsibilities or accountability. It’s not clear whether this is by necessity or choice—whether Kermit’s head hangs heavy with the crown, as the only one even remotely willing to step up, or whether he distrusts his colleagues’ competence.

It’s a little of both—for both Kermit and Michael. OK, their families have proven their incompetence and distractibility over and over, but we never really see them try to bring in outside help—unless it’s an evil producer/oil baron, for the Muppets, or a possible long-lost sister, for the Bluths. They’re too invested in being the Guy Holding Everything Together.

Whether they’re talking about being green or running the banana stand, it ain’t easy being them. And deep down, they wouldn’t have it any other way.

How the Internet Unites Activists in Russia, China, and Cuba

Torie Bosch — Wed, 05 Mar 2014 19:07:00 GMT

On Tuesday, March 4, Emily Parker discussed her new book Now I Know Who My Comrades Are: Voices From the Internet Underground with New America Foundation President Anne-Marie Slaughter at the New America offices in Washington, D.C. Slaughter and Parker, both veterans of the U.S. State Department, explored how the Internet can bring activists together in authoritarian countries—and the extent to which that online organizing can have real-world results.

Parker spent several years reporting her book, which looks closely at online networks in China, Cuba, and Russia. Over the course of that time she became familiar with the roles the Web plays in each. “They’re different because the way the government has controlled the Internet,” she said: China has its famous Great Firewall. Apathy reigns in Russia: “Eighty-five percent of Russians said [in one survey that] they felt they had no impact on their political process. The Internet is not going to change that,” Parker explained. And in Cuba, there is very little access: Just 5 percent of citizens go online.

The title of her book derives from a conversation she had with a Chinese dissident, who told her that the Internet helped him realize he wasn’t alone in having questions and concerns about the government. “Now I know who my comrades are,” he told her. Slaughter agreed that it is critical for activists to know they aren’t alone: A former colleague of hers at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs did research that indicated that the members of the opposition often underestimate how many of their compatriots also disagree with their government. But, Slaughter added, “the government knows who his comrades are, too. … Yes, this empowers the opposition, but doesn’t it empower the government even more?”

Parker agreed that governments can use technology to surveil and control their people, but she argued that that does not neutralize the Internet’s ability to strengthen the opposition by bringing people together at a vastly different scale. In Russia, for example, prominent opposition leader Alexei Navalny has recently been sentenced to house arrest and ordered to stay off the Internet. But the Russian opposition will go on without him, online and off. Before the Internet, protests in Russia were tiny and were broken up quickly by the police. “It was completely pointless and it was completely dangerous.” Now, she said, “the power of numbers is going to be a powerful weapon against governments that are trying to crack down on individuals.”

The situation was different in Cuba. “I think China and Russia probably have more sophisticated surveillance,” said Parker. “But in Cuba the surveillance is more in your face.” If you’re at an Internet café, you find yourself worried that the person next to you is an informant. Fear permeates the atmosphere, stifling discussion before it can begin. Yet in Cuba, “the Internet probably had the most transformative effect on the citizens” that she encountered. In part, that was because the netizens used the Internet not connect with the outside world. But there was another critical element: “The Internet in Cuba was psychologically transformative,” Parker said, by empowering people to find a voice. One blogger told her that thanks to the Internet, “I comport myself like a free man.”

Parker was careful not to oversell the Internet’s ability to transform an authoritarian government: “The Internet just reflects the reality on the ground. If that society is ready for offline protests, if it’s ready for revolution, the Internet will play that role.” China, for instance, isn’t likely to have a revolution any time soon. Regardless, Parker praised the Internet’s ability to help overcome psychological barriers that may keep people from organizing and demanding their rights.

“Authoritarian governments always look all-powerful until suddenly they’re not.”

Watch the full event on the New Ameria website.

Leave Cupid Alone, You Snobs

Torie Bosch — Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:49:00 GMT

It's become fashionable to sneer at Valentine's Day and to mock those who celebrate it. So fashionable, in fact, that in 2011 Torie Bosch felt compelled to defend the day of romance. In honor of the holiday, the article is reprinted below.

I'm almost afraid to say it: I have plans for Valentine's Day.

And I don't mean ironic, anti-Valentine's Day plans that attempt to reclaim the holiday for feminism, for singletons, for the smart and skeptical and disaffected. My longtime boyfriend and I have sincere, romantic plans. If I'm lucky, there may even be chocolate and flowers involved.

Among my friends and colleagues, admitting to enjoying Valentine's Day is about as socially acceptable as including "obey" in your wedding vows: Both seem to demonstrate subscription to outdated, narrow-minded views of romance. For the quintessential example of this anti-Valentines sentiment, I turn to 30 Rock's Liz Lemon, who said in a 2010 episode, "Valentine's Day is a sham created by card companies to reinforce and exploit gender stereotypes." The anti-Valentine's Day crowd is so enormous—look at the movies, the books, and, most of all, the trend pieces and angry tweets—that feeling smug about seeing through the holiday is now akin to feeling superior about buying organic. And a strain of hypocrisy runs through anti-Valentine's Day sentiment as well, in the form of the many profit-seeking ventures that capitalize on the Cupid hatred.

My objection isn't so much about the single folks who find Valentine's Day alienating, a reminder that they don't have a partner. If you're single and unhappy about that, of course it's somewhat upsetting to see so many celebrations of romantic love. Instead, I'm talking about the couples who say they are "above" Valentine's Day. You know what I'm talking about: those who sniff, "We think our love should be celebrated every day" or "I don't need Hallmark to remind me that I love my wife." They make a big deal out of not making a big deal out of Valentine's Day.

In my experience, these Valentine's Day opponents mostly see the holiday as something for the masses, a fake celebration crammed down our national throat. Their pride comes from their ability to resist marketing, and they wear their objections as an emblem of their savvy. A 2008 blog post on the site Credit.com goes through retail estimates of how much the "average consumer" will spend on Valentine's Day, then says, "But then we're not average consumers, right?" The anti-Valentine's Day couple likes to remind you that they are not average consumers. Part of the Valentine's Day hatred is not so much about actually disliking the holiday's crass consumerism—there's no rule that you have to overspend or buy a premade card—than fitting in with a culture of other smart, savvy, pop-culture-and-processed-food haters.

One of the biggest objections to Valentine's Day is that it's widely believed to be a recent invention of the greeting-card industry, with Hallmark taking the brunt of this anti-middlebrow wrath. The accusation is so pervasive that the company has posted on its Web site an article called "Just a Hallmark Holiday? Think Again!"

However, the anger at Hallmark and the charge that Valentine's Day celebration is a relatively modern development are both mistaken. Hallmark deserves neither the credit nor the blame for our Valentine's Day rituals. The company, founded in 1910, printed its first Valentine's Day card in 1913. The holiday itself dates back many centuries before then; it is apparently another pagan holiday that Christians attempted to co-opt, by transforming the Roman fertility celebration Lupercalia into St. Valentine's Day. Valentine's Day cards have been around since at least the 15^th century—the first was rumored to have been sent by a duke, held in the Tower of London, to his wife. Their popularity is nothing new, either: In 1917's The Book of Holidays, Joseph Walker McSpadden quotes another writer who claimed that more than 1 million valentines were sent through the London general post office in 1832, and companies have been making valentines since around then. Presumably, some bloke has been grumbling about ye olde empty sentiment since at least 1829.

Jewelry companies, which are another target of anti-Valentine's Day sentiment, are also accused of evangelizing the holiday in recent years to make sales, and that may be true. But men were buying Valentine's baubles for their honeys long before the first Zales ever opened its doors in a suburban shopping mall. The 17^th-century diaries of Samuel Pepys contain mention of a woman who received jewels worth several hundred pounds (in 1600s currency!) from her valentines.

Such outlandish expenses continue today, what with the special Valentine's Day prix-fixe menus and lingerie that the anti-Cupid crowd loves to hate. I don't think any couple should celebrate in a way that feels uncomfortable to them, and I certainly have no urge to pay for a prix-fixe meal myself. (No one will tell me what to order!) But you don't have to abandon the holiday entirely just because some people like to get extravagant.

After all, Valentine's Day hatred is frequently promoted by those who have their own profit motives—a rather hypocritical move, it seems. Here, I am referring less to the smug couples than to the single folks who shell out for products that celebrate their loathing of the holiday. A Chicago bakery offers anti-Valentine's Day cookies, with phrases like "I faked it" and "Careful, I break easily," for $2.95 each. There are anti-Valentine's Day gifts, too; Daily Candy recommends spending $135 on a "single" ring for the left hand or a $110 fragrance set, alongside cheaper gifts for the Valentine's Day loather. How is Bar Pilar's anti-Valentine's Day event less exploitive than the prix-fixe menus we all love to mock?

The worst part about Valentine's Day hatred is the way couples sometimes claim that they are just too in love to need it. I know that every day should be about romance, that the calendar shouldn't have to remind my boyfriend and me to take some time out and remember that we adore each other. (Yeah, it's saccharine, but true.) But our calendars are filled with dates that remind us to spend time on something—holidays that encourage us to spend time with family and to remember religious tradition; birthdays to celebrate each person's "cosmic specialness," as a friend of mine likes to say. What's wrong with Valentine's Day fitting into that? Sometimes we do need a reminder to take time out and acknowledge each other.

That's not to say that I am unsympathetic to those who find Valentine's Day to be a sad reminder, something that leaves out those who are not in a relationship; it can also put undue pressure on a relationship that is new or close to breaking. Just say that, then, instead of couching it in this language of superiority. If you dislike Valentine's Day, that's fine, but sentiments like those of the "anti-V.D. card" that says Valentine's Day is for the "brainwashed, vapid, sheeplike moron" (emphasis in the original) are, well, excessive. Maybe that guy would feel less angry and bitter if he just had a little chocolate—or a sweet Valentine's Day hug.

Like DoubleX on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.

Future Tense Event Recap: There’s More to Bitcoin Than Volatility and PR Stunts

Torie Bosch — Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:41:48 GMT

In May 2013, Forbes editor Kashmir Hill undertook an experiment: to live on bitcoin, the cryptocurrency currently in vogue, for a week. Finding restaurants that accepted the digital coins as payment—and later, getting delivery through a service—was so time-consuming that she ended up losing five pounds.

But if she were to try that experiment again this year, she said this week, “It would be too easy.” In less than a year, bitcoin has entered the public consciousness. You can use it to pay for everything from coffee to tuition—at the University of Nicosia in Cyprus, at least—and to donate to the SPCA in British Columbia, Canada. (That’s in part because, as Hill noted, companies have realized that announcing that your business now accepts bitcoin is the “easiest and freest publicity ever.”) Sure, not everyone understands it, but most people have heard of it—and, it seems, have an opinion about it.

On Tuesday, Feb. 11, Future Tense—a partnership of Arizona State University, the New America Foundation, and Slate—convened a group of economists, technologists, government officials, and journalists at the New America office in Washington, D.C., to decrypt the biggest questions raised by digital currency: Will cryptocurrencies ever be accepted at Wal-Mart? How can we keep cryptocurrencies from facilitating black-market trade in weapons, child pornography, even people? How can the companies that are operating in good faith separate themselves from those who would tarnish the field? Bitcoin has had a bit of a rough week, with security problems and a diss from JP Morgan, which called it “vastly inferior” to fiat currency. But despite the cryptocurrency’s reputation for volatility, the community is taking the long view, and they are optimistic. At bitcoin conferences, “the kind of energy that exists in the room … is unbelievable. I have not seen it rivaled at any other type of conference,” said Carol R. Van Cleef, a partner at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP.

While bitcoin received the most attention, most of the speakers agreed that in many ways, it was a stand-in for the broader conversation about cryptocurrency. For instance, Future Tense co-director Joel Garreau noted that bitcoin could be AltaVista—and the cryptocurrency equivalent of Google could be in its infancy or not even yet conceived. (Dogecoin: so potential?) Constance Choi, general counsel for Payward Inc., made a similar analogy: “We are where we were with the Internet in the early ‘90s.”

Just as key regulatory decisions and innovations in the early to mid-‘90s allowed people to hop online at 28.8 kbps, cryptocurrencies will require thoughtful incubation. Currently, relevant laws—especially about money laundering and money exchanges—are outdated and contradictory; policies vary between states and at the federal level. Some cryptocurrency advocates caution that the existing environment, and the slow pace of change, could rob the United States of the potential to be a leader in this nascent field. Van Cleef warned that taking too much time to create regulations will cost U.S. consumers financially as more exchanges move overseas.

Benjamin M. Lawsky, the superintendent of financial services for New York state, is heeding Cleef’s warning, trying to balance the need for regulation with the cryptocurrency field’s rapid growth. He and his team “are hoping that if we create a smart regulatory scheme,” they will be able to “separate the wheat from the chaff. The good firms who want to do this the right way, as opposed to those who want to do it the illicit way, will hopefully succeed.”

The “illicit way.” That comment illuminates bitcoin’s role as the bad boy in the popular imagination: it’s both alluring and frightening. “Before the advent of digital currencies … and this idea of anonymizing software like Tor, I never knew how to buy a kilo of cocaine,” said Jason Thomas, who is chief of innovation at Thomson Reuters Special Services. These negative associations about the purpose of bitcoin could hurt the currency not just with regulators, but with consumers.

Especially because some of the more potentially positive features—the anonymity of bitcoin, for instance—might be overstated. In fact, bitcoin is “more traceable than cash, theoretically,” said John Collins, a professional staff member at the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. That’s why Matthew D. Green of Johns Hopkins is working on ZeroCoin, which he hopes would be a completely anonymous cryptocurrency. That’s because anonymity isn’t just about crime: It would also allow people to donate to causes they may not want to be officially linked to, he said. (Sarah Jeong recently wrote about cryptocurrency and free speech for Future Tense.)

Beyond boosting charity donations, there could be other non-seedy purposes for bitcoin—even if they have slightly seedy origins. Barry Silbert, the founder of Bitcoin Investment Trust, pointed to the possible legalization of marijuana as one way of legitimizing cryptocurrency. If banks don’t want to deal with marijuana money, then bitcoin may be the answer for businesses taking part in the green rush.

But those positives aren’t enough to assuage the bitcoin skeptics. “You have to worry about protection of consumers. … and money laundering,” said Simon Johnson, a professor of management at MIT. (He was joined in his skepticism by fellow University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers, who pronounced at one point that “bitcoin is backed by nothing but libertarian exuberance.”)

Later, Lawsky put the money laundering qualm into context: " A lot more money has been laundered through large banks than through virtual currencies,” he said.

The last speaker of the day was Jennifer Shasky Calvery, the director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at the Treasury Department. FinCEN, she says, must stay on top of money laundering – and she and her team have been working with several cryptocurrency-related companies to help them navigate current federal regulations. But ultimately, it’s up to the players in the system: Virtual currency exchanges must now decide whether they prefer “shadows, criminality, and the risk … of extinction” to a transparent system. She noted that she has received reports of suspicious activity from some cryptocurrency exchanges, which gives her hope.

“I think we can all agree that the stakes are too high for the industry and the government to allow cryptocurrencies to be used by bad actors,” she said.

To watch the full event or individual panels, visit the New America Foundation website. Also on Future Tense:

"Are Bitcoins Making Money Laundering Easier? Bitcoins are sexy, but cash is still king," by Katherine Mangu-Ward
"The Paperless Economy: How bitcoin can and should beat governments at their own game," by Miles Kimball
"Financial Planning Site Mint Will Help You Keep Track of Your Bitcoins," by Lily Hay Newman
"Is Bitcoin Free Speech? Cryptocurrency can both enhance and undermine American democracy," by Sarah Jeong
"Give Me All Your Bitcoins: Credit card companies are one of our best defenses against financial crimes. But cryptocurrencies change everything," by Josephine Wolff
"Is Accepting Bitcoin Just a Publicity Stunt for Companies?" by Ariel Bogle

I Am Not a Pet Parent

Torie Bosch — Thu, 26 Dec 2013 15:20:09 GMT

The other day, while tearing about in a pre-feeding frenzy, my sweet cat Callie (a calico, of course) ran into my foot—hard—as I was stepping forward to crack open a can of Saucy Seafood Bake. She looked shocked for a second, then hid. And my soul wailed: “I’m a terrible cat mom.”

And then I snapped out of it, realized that the adorable little chucklehead did it to herself, and that I’m not a cat mom. I’m a cat owner, even if at times it seems like my two felines rule the household.

But Big Pet wants to change that. Companies are pushing the phrase “pet parent,” and it needles me as much as Callie’s (not-declawed) paws when she’s kneading my stomach. Take, for instance, this commercial from Blue Buffalo pet food, which seems to be on TV constantly:

I want to scream: Stop trying to make “pet parent” happen.

But it’s already happening. A survey found that 76 percent of dog owners preferred to be called “dog parents” or “pet parents.” (That survey was commissioned by the dog-sitter search site Rover.com, so I hope and trust that the numbers are inflated.) Much as I hate to put down my fellow animal lovers, these people have been indoctrinated.

The American Pet Products Association estimates that total U.S. spending on pets will top $55 billion this year. That’s almost double the amount shelled out in 2001. To maintain that kind of growth requires the sale of more (and more expensive) pet foods, cat trees, and manicures. To sell additional outdoor habitats for indoor cats apparently requires owners to feel as emotionally and financially invested in their furry cuddlebugs as real parents are in their children.

Some vets ask new customers whether they consider their animals part of the family. Presumably, embracing that designation—and you look like sort of a jerk if you don’t—signals that you are willing to spend a lot of money on your animal. (Of course it’s every pet owner’s responsibility to ensure that her furball is healthy and pain-free, and I believe that most vets are likewise more concerned about their patients’ well-being than profit. Vet school is not exactly the place to go to become wealthy. But there is certainly some upselling in the biz.)

Perhaps the most egregious attempt to push pet parenting is Pet Parent’s Day, a made-up holiday to end made-up holidays. It was founded in 2008 by Veterinary Pet Insurance, which is owned by Nationwide. The festivities take place on the last Sunday of April. Just in for heartworm season! VPI makes the case for the holiday with this tongue-bath for pet owners:

For those who tirelessly scoop poop, dish out kibble and share a cramped bed with four paws, this day is for you.

You’ve planned birthday parties for Fido, bought specially-formulated oatmeal shampoo that costs more than your own, and made a point to stroll down the pet aisle every time you shop at the convenience store.

You might even plan vacations that include your pet, or make a point to carve out a couple of hours a day for playtime at home, a dog park or even the beach.

Devoted pet parents like you deserve more than a pat on the back—celebrate Pet Parent’s Day ^® and bond with your pet this weekend.

I tirelessly scoop poop, dish out kibble, and share a cramped bed with eight paws, and I think that this is daft. If you are so exhausted from caring for your pet that you believe you “deserve” a special weekend to “bond with your pet,” you may want to reconsider your approach.

As dog blogger Christie Keith wrote in 2010:

Calling me a "pet parent," and even worse, calling dog training "pet parenting," may be questionable in any number of ways, but above all, it lacks authenticity. "Pet parent" is the language of the marketer, of the ad campaign designed to sell you pet food and drugs and services by implying that doing "less" for your pets than your children means you don't really love them.

I don’t have children yet, so my two cats receive excessive amounts of love and care from both my husband and me. They sleep with us each night, and we discuss their personalities and interactions at length. I care deeply about their comfort and happiness. (Don’t tell me cats can’t feel happiness. I’ve seen Callie after a cuddle session.) We build part of our lives around them. Though a real Christmas tree would be nice, I don’t trust my cat Goose around one. (But if we had one and she started climbing it, I’d be smart enough to put down the camera before too much havoc was wrecked.)

But that isn’t parenting. Parenting prepares a human being to live and thrive in the real world without the constant guidance of a mother or father. Ideally, the person should, unlike my cats, be able to answer nature’s calls without anyone else having to clean it up. Yeah, some cats can use the toilet, but mine will never be that self-sufficient. They will be indolent and indulged, dependent on my husband and me, for the rest of their days. It is a two-way relationship: They give me unconditional affection, comfort, and warmth when I just can’t deal with humans any longer. But that isn’t a parent-child relationship. It’s a pet-pet owner relationship.

I may do the bidding of Callie and Goose. But I still own them.

Computer Scientist Grace Hopper, Subject of Today’s Google Doodle, Rocked Letterman in 1986

Torie Bosch — Mon, 09 Dec 2013 18:56:00 GMT

Today’s Google doodle honors Grace Hopper, the late, great computer scientist who was known as the “queen of software.” Had she not died in 1992, Hopper would have turned 107 today.

Hopper, who received a Ph.D. from Yale in mathematics before entering the Navy and working her way up to rear admiral, was a pioneer in the early days of computing. Women were well-represented in the field in the 1940s, but Hopper's work stands out: She helped create the programming language COBOL, for instance, as well as the colloquial language we still use for computers. As the Washington Post explains, "She also once discovered a problematic dead moth in a computer; she de-bugged the computer, saved the specimen and would be credited with popularizing the term 'bug in the system.' ”

She also knew how to work a crowd. In 1986, shortly before her 80^th birthday and just after she retired from the Navy, Hopper chatted with David Letterman for a full 10 minutes about her career in the military, what exactly a “nanosecond” is, and how hard it is to buy pantyhose. She’s delightfully smart-alecky in the interview: When Letterman asks her why she joined the Navy at the age of 37 in 1943, she responds, “Well, World War II, to begin with.”

In the clip below, Hopper reminisces about when “the Navy ordered me the first big computer in the United States”—the Mark 1.

Watch the rest of the interview—in which she explains what a nanosecond is and alludes briefly to Moore’s Law—on YouTube. (Video via Hacker News.)

Can Better Technology Solve the Obesity Crisis? A Future Tense Event Recap.

Torie Bosch — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:36:00 GMT

For a little while, it seemed that the Wii Fit and similar exercise games might be a, if not the, silver bullet for the obesity epidemic. The idea made sense: If kids and adults alike are going to play video games anyway, we might as well make them sweat while they do it. Win-win!

There was just one problem: Studies found that the Wii Fit’s actual ability to improve fitness was “underwhelming.”

But as anyone who has ever played sports knows (even someone like me, who always cowered at the ball), perseverance is key to getting in better shape. Just because the Wii Fit didn’t change everything doesn’t mean that technology can’t play a role in making people healthier.

On Nov. 14, Future Tense—a partnership of Slate, the New America Foundation, and Arizona State University—hosted an event called “Technology and the Future of America’s Waistline” to discuss how food engineering, social engineering, self-tracking gadgets, and other technologies might be able to help fight America’s obesity epidemic.

Speakers at the two-hour event came from the worlds of business, journalism, academia, and policy. While each approaches the topic of technology and health from a different perspective, all agree: There is no single solution to the obesity crisis—we can’t wait for a Mark Zuckerberg-type to invent something that will make everyone think kale salad is just as tasty as Flamin’ Hot Cheetos. But technology has a definite role to play going forward.

The event began with remarks from Alexandra Brewis-Slade, the director of operations for Arizona State University-Mayo Obesity Solutions. An anthropologist by training, Brewis-Slade is interested in the question of fat stigma and the role it plays in the obesity epidemic. “The one thing we do know is shaming people … actually undermines rather than encourages weight loss,” she said. The overweight face bullying at school and are less likely to get into college or get a job offer. That’s because a weight problem is seen as a moral failing. Furthermore, fat stigma—which used to be a largely Western phenomenon—has spread around the globe. The problem of obesity, she says, has become far too large and complicated to fix by yelling at people.

So what does that have to do with technology? A lot, actually. After her presentation, Brewis-Slade joined a panel with David H. Freedman, contributing editor at the Atlantic and at Inc. and consulting editor for Johns Hopkins Medicine International; Robert C. Post, chief science officer of FoodMinds and the former associate executive director of the USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion; and moderator Laura Helmuth, the science and health editor at Slate, to discuss whether we could engineer food to make it healthier. Picking up on Brewis-Slade’s exploration of the social dimensions of obesity, Freedman discussed an idea he recently proposed in the Atlantic: engineering junk food so as to make it lower in calories, sugar, and fat. Freedman believes that while farm-to-table and fresh-is-best is all well and good, the fact is that lots of overweight people like junk food. (As someone who occasionally indulges in Kraft macaroni and cheese out of nostalgia for that scrumptiously artificial neon-orange sauce, I know what he’s saying.) Pontificating about farmers markets is not going to change that. “We’ve been telling people to eat their vegetables” for more than a century, he said—and it’s not working. So instead of shaming people into eating the way we want, why not make those unhealthy snacks healthier? He pointed to Burger King’s “Satisfries” as an example of a food that tastes virtually identical to the real thing, but that isn’t quite as bad for you. But Freedman said readers were “outraged” by his Atlantic piece, finding it sacrilegious.

Post agreed that “stealth improvements” can be crucial to making food healthier. But he also advocated for empowering people to make their own informed choices, rather than telling them what to do. For instance, he said that the USDA’s SuperTracker has become a popular way for Americans to monitor their choices and learn where they might make positive changes.

His point was an excellent segue to our next panel: “Beyond Calorie Counting: Can Gadgets Help Fight Obesity?” Moderator Marvin Ammori, a Future Tense fellow and a devotee of personal health monitoring programs, spoke with Jessica Jacobs, the director of innovation at Aetna Innovation Labs; Walter R. Thompson, chair of the American Fitness Index Advisory Board and an associate dean for graduate studies and research at Georgia State University; and Zephyr Technology Corp. CEO and founder Brian Russell. The speakers agreed that the answer to the question posed in the panel was yes—as long as you emphasize the “can.”

Russell, whose company makes health monitors that are used by soldiers, athletes, and others who require a high level of fitness, says that for the concept of self-monitoring to reach wide appeal, the gadgets need to contain elements of “socialization, entertainment, some gamification.” Ammori, for one, appreciates gamification: He spoke about how he strives—and strides—to get the “trophy” that his favorite health app gives him each day he walks a certain amount. But Russell later cautioned that gamification can be oversimplification—it alone won’t motivate people to lose weight.

Furthermore, Russell said, it’s not just about watching the numbers—it’s about having a community that can give you feedback, help you set manageable goals, and make it fun. But he cautioned against getting too granular: “Gadgets collect data, but you don’t want to look at the data every day.” Rather, occasional reminders from your gadgets can be more effective in, say, encouraging prediabetics to monitor their diet more closely.

Jacobs focused on the stick-to-it-iveness problem by noting that one-quarter of all people who download a smartphone app for health tracking use it only once. Furthermore, about the same proportion ends up using it 11 or more times—so basically, about 75 percent of the people who download these apps don’t use them regularly. People rapidly become bored or frustrated. Thompson echoed that by saying that while it’s encouraging that people are using apps, many of them are the ones who already are eating well and exercising regularly—it’s the rest of the population we need to worry about. “Who’s using these apps? And is it really reaching … the people who are not motivated to exercise, the people who are not motivated to diet and to lose weight?” He suggests that doctors may need to create “prescriptions” to encourage reluctant patients use the monitors.

And while Freedman spoke earlier about his enthusiasm for the Satisfries, Thompson brought up a counter-example: the adult happy meal (or “Go Active Meal”) that McDonald’s rolled out to much fanfare in 2004. The product turned out to be a bust, because people weren’t interested in the pedometers and healthier foods that came in the pack.

So right now, the health technology space is growing in ways that are promising, but not yet major lifesavers for the majority of people who have weight problems. Meanwhile, people continue to watch TV, play video games, and stare at computer screens while snacking.

To misquote Homer Simpson: Here’s to technology, the cause of and solution to all of life’s problems.

Now Robots Are Coming for Dogs’ Jobs, Too

Torie Bosch — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:32:52 GMT

Those dastardly robots! They aren’t content to replace bartenders, journalists, and lawyers—now they’re coming after jobs performed by dogs, humans’ other favorite mammal.

Researchers in Australia have created a robot that can herd cattle. Its name, of course, is Rover. While a human being has to guide Rover for now, there are plans to automate it, according to BBC News.

For city slickers like me who enjoy watching a dog earn his kibble the old-fashioned way, this is a tragedy of automation. But according to the BBC, some Australian farmers with no sense of tradition have taken to rounding up their beasts with four-wheelers, which can cause injuries to human and animal alike. Rover offers a safe alternative if you’re already planning to the Australian cattle dog out to pasture. And as you can see in the video below, the bot's performance is pretty impressive.

Obviously, the next step for the researchers is creating a sheep-herding version of Rover that can belt out a proper “Baa-ram-ewe.”

Clever Twitter Account Imagines Realistic, Bureaucracy-Filled Sci-Fi

Torie Bosch — Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:31:18 GMT

Alfonso Cuarón’s space blockbuster Gravity has won over experts, like Slate’s Phil Plait, who called it “incredible” (italics his) and said that when it came to the science, “it got so much right.” But Plait still found some inaccuracies, as did astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who took to Twitter to call out “Gravity mysteries.”

So what might a more accurate science movie look like? For that, you can consult the excellent new Twitter account @HardSciFiMovies. It’s not quite an anti-Gravity machine, but it tries to stay down to Earth.

@HardSciFiMovies, which launched Oct. 8, has been issuing pithy story lines that might not lend themselves to the destruction of mankind—but would more accurately capture how science works in the real world.

That means overcoming setbacks that would set disaster in motion if tackled by screenwriters:

And being realistic about limitations:

And of course, we can’t forget bureaucracy:

But don't worry, there's still room for CGI:

Find more here. Hat-tip: Lee Billings.

Wiki Walks: A Haunting List of Inventors Killed by Their Own Creations

Torie Bosch — Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:19:38 GMT

Welcome to the first installment of Future Tense’s new Wiki Walk series. Our goal: to find the most surprising, engrossing, and entertaining entries and lists on the people-powered repository of knowledge—the kind that are destined to send you on a long, invigorating wiki walk. If you have a favorite Wikipedia entry, tweet it to @FutureTenseNow or leave it in the comments.

The men and woman on this Wikipedia list each range from would-be recipients of the Darwin Awards—given to those who take themselves out of the gene pool by graciously dying at the hands of their own stupidity—to actual winners of the Nobel Prize. They are the inventors killed by their own creations. But every death by invention comes with its own special flavor.

Just desserts:

James Douglas, 4th Earl of Morton (1581) was executed in Edinburgh on the Scottish Maiden which he had introduced to Scotland as Regent.

Sort of stupid, sort of admirable:

Alexander Bogdanov (22 August 1873—7 April 1928) was a Russian physician, philosopher, science fiction writer and revolutionary of Belarusian ethnicity who started blood transfusion experiments, apparently hoping to achieve eternal youth or at least partial rejuvenation. He died after he took the blood of a student suffering from malaria and tuberculosis, possibly due to blood type incompatibility.

Failure to respect the scientific method:

Franz Reichelt (1879–1912), a tailor, fell to his death off the first deck of the Eiffel Tower while testing his invention, the coat parachute. It was his first ever attempt with the parachute and he had told the authorities in advance that he would test it first with a dummy.

Hindsight is 20/20:

Henry Smolinski (died 1973) was killed during a test flight of the AVE Mizar, a flying car based on the Ford Pinto and the sole product of the company he founded.

If only he knew in 1973 what we know now about the Pinto.

OK, this is just sad:

Thomas Midgley, Jr. (1889–1944) was an American engineer and chemist who contracted polio at age 51, leaving him severely disabled. He devised an elaborate system of strings and pulleys to help others lift him from bed. This system was the eventual cause of his death when he was accidentally entangled in the ropes of this device and died of strangulation at the age of 55.

Another science gender gap:

The sole woman on the list is Marie Curie, who discovered radium before dying of radiation poisoning, and who was the first female recipient of the Nobel Prize. (Lauren Redniss’ 2010 graphic novel Radioactive: Marie & Pierre Curie: A Tale of Love and Fallout tells the story beautifully.) But her inclusion was controversial: The Talk page for the Wikipedia entry shows vigorous debate over whether her discovery of radium should be considered an invention—she has been removed and reinserted several times since 2007.

Indeed, the talk page is filled with glorious hair-splitting over what counts as an “invention” and when a death can be attributed to one. In 2011, one Wikipedian argued that the entire article should be renamed, writing: “If a man creates a robot that then kills him then certainly he has been killed by his invention, but if he creates a motorbike and falls or unsuccessfully deploys his parachute after jumping then he is killed by gravity, incompetence etc.”

The page busts one popular myth: The inventor of the Segway was not, in fact, killed after driving his Segway off a cliff. The man who suffered that undignified end was the owner of Segway Inc., not the creator of Gob Bluth’s favored mode of transportation.

Read more on Wikipedia.

Should Your Doctor Be Allowed to Google You?

Torie Bosch — Tue, 08 Oct 2013 23:12:00 GMT

You probably aren’t entirely honest with your doctor (or dentist). Maybe you slightly exaggerate how frequently you exercise or round down how much you drink. Perhaps you indulge in the occasional social cigarette but don’t want to admit to it during your physical.

What if your doctor called you out on those lies—by calling up your Facebook page right in the exam room and pointing to a photo that shows you smoking?

The September/October issue of the Hastings Center Report, a bioethics journal, asks whether it’s OK for doctors and other health care workers to “google their patients.” To frame the question, the Report offers a case study: A 26-year-old woman asks doctors to perform a preventative double mastectomy. In her reporting, her family tree was positively riddled with cancer:

She reported that she had developed melanoma at twenty-five; that her mother, sister, aunts, and a cousin all had breast cancer; that a cousin had ovarian cancer at nineteen; and that a brother was treated for esophageal cancer at fifteen.

That didn’t sound right to her doctors. They went to her primary care physician to get more information, but instead found more red flags: The woman had been diagnosed with an “atypical mole,” not melanoma, and some of her primary care physician’s colleagues were skeptical about her self-reported history. In the end, the doctors found Facebook pages that suggested the patient was suffering from something else entirely—possibly Munchausen by Internet, in which someone pretends to be sick, often with cancer, to get attention or money. (To be fair, it’s not clear whether she was trying to fool people in real life or online.) The surgery did not take place.

Alongside the case study, the Hastings Center Report has two commentaries on the ethical issues at play: one that argues that the doctors shouldn’t have Googled, and one that says they did the right thing. (Each has three co-authors.) The con camp writes that Internet searches “can erode provider-patient trust” and are “an invasion of privacy.” They conclude, “Why would a health care provider google a patient rather than just ask the individual in person?”

That seems overly credulous, given that the case study says that the patient was asked about her history—and apparently lied. The opposing commentary agrees, dismissing the “never-google” crowd as taking an “abstinence-only approach.” They argue that while of course it’s preferable to get information directly from the patient, “it would be irresponsible not to exhaust all resources in learning about a patient with such troubling red flags.” They make it clear that they don’t think every patient should be Googled, but that “checklists and guidelines” could help determine who should be searched—like those suspected of doctor shopping or who give inconsistent histories.

If the doctors hadn’t searched for more information about the 26-year-old patient, they might have performed an invasive surgery for no reason, putting her at risk of genuine physical problems. Furthermore, it might have allowed her to double down on her false claims of illness, allowing her to get more sympathy or even money out of people. As my colleague Justin Peters has written, it never ends well when you fake cancer.

I don’t want my doctor to poke around my social media presence for evidence that I’m sugar-coating the truth about my diet. But then again, my fudge doesn’t involve a scalpel.

Planning to Live to 150? Start Saving Up: A Future Tense Event Recap

Torie Bosch — Fri, 04 Oct 2013 23:28:11 GMT

Get comfortable in that office chair, because traditional retirement at the age of 65 is rapidly going extinct.

That was the prevailing message of “The Future of Longevity,” a Future Tense event held Friday morning at the Washington Post building. Economists, policymakers, and culture watchers gathered to discuss how life extension—even beyond what we have achieved so far—could change everything from marriage to the GDP. Maybe dramatic changes in longevity aren’t just around the corner, but at Future Tense, we believe that it’s important to discuss transformative technological and scientific changes early and often.

As my colleague Laura Helmuth has chronicled on Slate, life expectancy in the United States has doubled in the last 150 years. But what if we were to improve on that still more, whether through personalized medicine, genomics, nanotechnology, or some other breakthrough? A recent Pew survey found that Americans are wary of living to 120 or beyond, but William Saletan explained in Future Tense that a bias likely skewed those numbers: When we think of old age, we think of bodies and minds breaking down. But if we could live to 120, 140, or 150 and spend those extra years in good health, you might welcome the opportunity to get to know (and even roughhouse with) your great-great-grandchildren.

So let’s assume that we could indeed age gracefully, and more slowly, together. What might that look like?

Family reunions will get much, much bigger.
During his opening remarks, Slate Group Editor-in-Chief Jacob Weisberg joked that we might need to think about what we would call the 100^th anniversary—the plutonium anniversary? But in the first panel of the day, Chris Hackler, the director of the Division of Medical Humanities at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Medicine, proposed that the idea of a century-long marriage might be radioactive. “How many people really want to stay married for 100 years?” he asked. Instead, we may see a rise in serial relationships: In your long lifetime, you might have three or four serious romantic partners. That’s because while marriage used to be for procreation, it’s now for happiness—and he suspects that the same person won’t make us happy during such a long life.

As life has gotten longer, we've seen the age of marriage and first child rise. Today, however, women can put off having children for only so long. But what if we could delay or even eliminate menopause? Sonia Arrison, author of 100+: How the Coming Age of Longevity Will Change Everything, From Careers and Relationships to Family and Faith, has thought hard about what might happen if advances that slow the aging process can also allow for extended fertility. Serially monogamous women might have children with each of their partners—maybe one child at 25 and then another at 70. That would radically alter sibling dynamics. What’s more, Hackler added, it could mean growing up with as many as dozens of grandparents, great-grandparents, and great-great-grandparents. That would undoubtedly require a rewrite of the etiquette books, he said.

We’ll all have to count our pennies more wisely—and expect more working years.
“Most people don’t really want to die,” Matthew Yglesias, Slate’s business and economics correspondent, said while moderating the panel “Can We Ever Retire? Would We Even Want To?” But, he added, “it places sort of significant financial challenges on people to know … how to save for a longer retirement and what that ought to look like, particularly if we’re thinking of a world in which people may need to work longer because savings may not extend that far.”

And that’s going to be quite a challenge: According to Lisa Mensah of the Aspen Institute’s Initiative on Financial Security, “half of the workforce hasn’t been amassing private savings.” Stashing your cash instead of going on an Amazon shopping spree is important, of course, but this isn’t just about lecturing people about personal responsibility. Mensah emphasized that we need to shore up the safety net. “Many workers, no matter what class, are still counting on a robust Social Security system,” she said. “But everybody, even that greeter at Wal-Mart, wants a private saving system to build on top of Social Security.” Mark Warshawsky of the Federal Commission on Long-Term Care agreed that Social Security is an “important base,” but argued that the program is “old-fashioned,” reflecting a ‘30s view of marriage and retirement alike. It needs to be updated, he said, to reflect what’s already happened to our lifespans and working lives, much less what’s to come.

Jamie Kalamarides, a senior vice president at Prudential Retirement, noted that depending on the estimate you use, just 25 percent of small businesses offer workplace-based savings plans—and that’s particularly problematic because small-business employees tend to be women, people of color, and low- to moderate-income earners. (Disclosure: Prudential sponsored the “Future of Longevity” event.) He envisions new policies that would make it easier and more affordable for mom-and-pop operations to offer savings plans.

Kalamarides and Mensah agreed that the key to helping people save for retirement is to make it simple and automatic. If you have to opt out of payroll deductions to retirement accounts, you’re much more likely to accumulate funds. We need “defaults so that people avoid making mistakes,” said Kalamarides.

During a later panel, Gary Koenig, who is director of economic security at AARP's Public Policy Institute, went so far as to use the M-word with regard to savings: mandate. (“We might get a couple of shutdowns over that,” said moderator William Saletan—fighting words in D.C. these days.)

The day’s speakers were unanimous that retirement at 65 is a thing of the past. But as many pointed out, it’s easier for office workers to keep working into their gray years (death by swivel chair notwithstanding). If you do physical labor, even medical advances might not make it safe or possible to stay on the job into your eighth or ninth decade.

Furthermore, as Arizona State University’s Michael Birt noted, variability between people increases with age. There are “old” 65-year-olds and young ones, too. (Arizona State is a partner with Slate and the New America Foundation in Future Tense.) But there are solutions to explorel: Wilhelmina Leigh of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies suggests that we should expand the way we think about retirement. More workplaces ought to allow for flexible retirement, she says—maybe you only go in to work three days a week, and your benefits and salary are prorated accordingly. That would allow people to participate in the workforce without costing them their health, especially if they have physically demanding jobs.

The economy may soar.
So if people are going to live longer, the nuclear family as we know it may be over, and retirement funding will create headaches. But there’s good news: Longevity is good for the economy. Really, really good.

Professors Robert Topel and Kevin Murphy of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business took the stage to discuss their landmark 2005 paper "The Value of Health and Longevity." The abstract for their paper states:

Over the 20th century, cumulative gains in life expectancy were worth over $1.2 million per person for both men and women. Between 1970 and 2000 increased longevity added about $3.2 trillion per year to national wealth, an uncounted value equal to about half of average annual GDP over the period. Reduced mortality from heart disease alone has increased the value of life by about $1.5 trillion per year since 1970. The potential gains from future innovations in health care are also extremely large. Even a modest 1 percent reduction in cancer mortality would be worth nearly $500 billion.

Not too shabby. In other words: “All the improvements in computers and communications and everything else, totaled up, is roughly the same or even a little smaller than what we’ve gotten from increased longevity,” they said during their presentation. As long as we can keep advances in health care within reasonable limits, we’ll see still more value.

***

Too often, said Lisa Mensah, people don’t really think about retirement until they’ve experienced their first slipped disc. But if we start thinking about it well before, then growing older—however it happens in the future—will be a lot less painful.

Also in Slate:

"Drooling on Your Shoes or Living Long and Prospering? Four visions of our future lifespans," by Joel Garreau.

"It Takes a Village, Part II: How to support the coming boom in the elderly population," by Michael Birt.

More Proof That The Good Wife Is the Best Technology Show on TV

Torie Bosch — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:39:00 GMT

Robots don’t usually show up on TV unless it’s to ruin civilization—or unless the show is set hundreds of years in the future. And they’re usually sophisticated machines (Futurama’s Bender’s taste in booze notwithstanding).

But on CBS last night, a robot took a bold roll forward—into a door.

In the fifth-season premiere of The Good Wife, the halls of the law firm Lockhart/Gardner were stalked by a somewhat inept telepresence robot, a machine intended to be a physical avatar for someone working remotely. According to the Twitter account of the show’s writers, “Everyone loved it on the set. We kept running out of battery life because people loved playing with it.”

The fumbling robot, and the characters’ irritated and/or confused reactions to it, might not seem like great advertising for the technology, but the folks at Double Robotics were nevertheless proud to see their creation on primetime. David Cann, the CEO and co-founder of Double Robotics, says he's "fine" with "the Double" being used as "a sort of punchline." For both the operator of the bot and the co-workers in the office, there's a "learning curve" of sorts, he says. But after a day or two, "People get used to it. You’ve made all the jokes, you’ve done the kick-me signs, and then it’s back to work.”

In the clip below, you can see the bot in action briefly.

The clip also showed another high-tech subplot, involving metadata and surveillance. In this case, the NSA wasn’t involved—it was suspicious higher-ups who wanted access to call data and even texts.

It's not surprising that The Good Wife's season premiere included multiple tech-driven story lines. “The Good Wife has become revered among geeks, and for good reason: It offers the deftest portrayal of technology on TV. In fact, it may be the best force for digital literacy in pop culture right now,” Clive Thompson recently wrote on Wired. He goes on to explain:

In most shows, technology is painted as either implausibly superpowered (“Wait— enhance that image!”) or alarmingly dangerous. Procedurals have been particular offenders. On Law & Order, the Internet is mostly just a shadowy place where teens are lured to their death. On Person of Interest, government agencies use pervasive surveillance technology to predict malintent with pinpoint accuracy. The Good Wife avoids this Manichaean trap.

Or, as Emily Nussbaum put it in the New Yorker in 2012: "Put bluntly, 'The Good Wife' is to the digital debate as 'The Wire' is to the drug war."

The Good Wife doesn’t just use technology to construct legal cases, though. Social media plays a major role in the story lines surrounding Alicia’s children, Grace and Zach. Last night, for instance, Zach was flustered to learn that his sister had been included in a list of 10 hot politicians’ daughters posted on a site called Turbochap. (The Good Wife’s usual stand-in for Google is the wonderfully named Chumhum.)

But some of the show’s finest tech moments come in passing, as characters bump into new gadgets, sites, and ways of doing things—or as the tech itself bumps into characters, as was the case with the telepresence bot. It doesn’t have to be life-changing innovation, either, as this clip of a speakerphone bot shows:

Frog Tries to Hitch a Ride to Space

Torie Bosch — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 16:43:00 GMT

When NASA launched its LADEE moon probe on Sept. 6, a frog seemed to get in the way. After Universe Today spotted the extraordinary image, NASA offered a little more info:

A still camera on a sound trigger captured this intriguing photo of an airborne frog as NASA's LADEE spacecraft lifts off from Pad 0B at Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia. The photo team confirms the frog is real and was captured in a single frame by one of the remote cameras used to photograph the launch. The condition of the frog, however, is uncertain.

But my Slate colleague Phil Plait, who runs the Bad Astronomy blog, says that he thinks the frog is probably fine. "Given how big it looks compared to the rocket, it was clearly pretty close to the camera," he says. However: "I can't personally guarantee the frog made it through a) alive, or 2) with clean underpants."

Sorry, I have to say it: That's one giant leap for frogkind.

Via Universe Today.

Pew Survey: Few Internet Users Bother to Try to Hide From Government

Torie Bosch — Thu, 05 Sep 2013 21:36:40 GMT

Summer has ended, but Edward Snowden’s revelations about government Internet surveillance aren’t letting up, as evidenced by Thursday’s Guardian report about how encryption can be foiled.

But a Pew survey also released Thursday suggests that the NSA leaks didn’t prompt major changes in Americans’ Internet habits—at least not at first. The polling for the report “Anonymity, Privacy, and Security Online” was conducted in July 11-14, a month after Snowden began blowing his whistle, and it seems to suggest that Americans are taking privacy seriously: Eight-six percent of those surveyed reported that they had tried to hide their Internet tracks at least once, most commonly by deleting something from their browser history, removing or editing a public posting, or disabling cookies. That’s good news, given the common lament that people say they care about digital privacy but don’t take action to protect themselves.

So whose prying eyes are Internet users trying to evade? “Hackers, criminals and advertisers are at the top of the list of groups people wish to avoid,” says the report. "Certain friends" and "people from your past" are also commonly avoided. Just 5 percent say they have attempted to avoid “the government,” while 4 percent have tried to hide their virtual tracks from “law enforcement.”

Meanwhile, a late July survey—also from the good people at Pew—found:

A majority of Americans—56%—say that federal courts fail to provide adequate limits on the telephone and internet data the government is collecting as part of its anti-terrorism efforts. An even larger percentage (70%) believes that the government uses this data for purposes other than investigating terrorism.

So people are concerned about the fact that the government is watching but rarely try to interrupt the process. That may actually be reasonable: “If you’re not a cryptography ninja or a security guru, then the NSA will know your secrets if they target you,” Sascha Meinrath and Brian Duggan of the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute write on New America's new publication the Weekly Wonk. Meinrath and Duggan do share some user-friendly privacy tips that are worth checking, though. (Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, the New America Foundation, and Arizona State University.)

The average person probably can’t stop the NSA’s surveillance—but you also don’t have to be dumb about what you share online. Remember those 86 percent of people who say they have tried to protect their privacy? Well, they sure are sharing a lot about themselves online.

I Can’t Dance

Torie Bosch — Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:18:21 GMT

At my first middle school dance, in 1996, I was the only person who didn’t know the Macarena.

Or, at least, that’s how I remember it. When the song’s opening giggle played, everyone else prepared to fold their arms and wiggle in time, while I stood there, baffled. The delegates at the 1996 Democratic National Convention knew the Macarena (albeit not very well). Al Gore (or at least his speechwriters) knew it well enough to use it in a joke that made fun of his legendary stiffness. When Al Gore is in better touch with pop culture than you are, you are pathetic.

The Macarena is not a complicated routine. A normal person would have been able to pick it up after the second or third go-round. But by the end of the song, I was still confused. By the time I finally mastered it, the long, cruel reign of the Macarena had already ended. My years of dance-related trauma had just begun.

Before I get into the details, I’d like to take a moment to send mental hugs to the girls (and guys) who will line the cafeteria walls this school year, arms crossed, head nodding ever so slightly, while everyone else gets down (or twerks!). Unless a group of cool kids decide to make you their pet, there aren’t really any perks of being a wallflower. It’s just lonely and humiliating, though not quite as humiliating as making a fool of yourself on the dance floor. I would like to be able to tell those awkward tweens to buck up, it gets better, etc. But as Simon Doonan recently wrote in Slate, it doesn’t always. Being unable to dance well is a lifetime affliction, one that, yes, may allow you to live an almost normal existence but will inevitably flare up any time you go to a wedding or hang out with friends who want to play Just Dance.

Here’s the problem: I have no sense of rhythm. In lieu of that, I tend to synchronize my boogying with emphasized lyrics. The results are odd, to say the least. Whenever a singer, say, draws out a word, my instinct is to slow my body down into a not-graceful riff on a ballet move, which doesn’t work, oh, 90 percent of the time. My focus on the words means I’m also really primed to hear lyrics as mandates—so when Mika sings “Running around like a clown on purpose,” I am very tempted to run in place and make a goofy face. Not attractive.

My un-coordination is, I’ve been told, contagious—I inevitably pull all partners down to my level. At one high school semiformal, a friend—a friend!—observed my date and me doing the good ol’ stiff-armed, far-apart slow dance and smirked, “Not on the beat, huh?” (Slow songs have beats?)

Furthermore, I cannot move more than two limbs independently of each other at once. I’m like Elaine from Seinfeld (or whoever her 2013 equivalent is—you tell me), except if I tried to do the thumbs and the kicks, I’d probably topple over. In fact, moving my feet at all while dancing is likely to end poorly, which is why I tend to lock my knees and shimmy only from the hips up. Let’s call it the half-body dry heave.

Yet—and this is the really, really sad part—I love to dance. It’s the only form of exercise that has ever released noticeable endorphins for me, instead of just causing pain and/or nausea. “So, dance!” you say, “like you don’t care who’s watching.” But I also suffer from pernicious social anxiety—and few things open one up to ridicule, especially during adolescence, as much as dancing badly. Alcohol “helps,” until it doesn’t. Like the time when I was dancing happily, maybe a little drunkenly, at a bar in college and a girl I didn’t know came up behind me. She spent a few counts mimicking me and then shouted, “You’ve got some moves!” In my dancing happy place, I didn’t recognize the scorn in her voice and said, “Thanks!” It wasn’t until the next morning that the interaction came into focus.

Dancing is a stand-in for so many of middle school and high school’s coveted characteristics: fluency in pop culture, sexiness, confidence. But of course the latter becomes a liability if it isn’t backed up by skill—self-assured dancing in the absence of rhythm is unforgivable to teenagers.

Thankfully, we don’t stay teenagers forever, and as I close in on 30, my lifelong self-consciousness about dancing is finally diminishing, and not because I’m always drunk.

About two years ago, I began doing Zumba—the Latin/hip-hop/whatever dance workout that is constantly hawked on late-night TV. (It also seems to be a considerable source of income for Pitbull and Lil Jon.) If you are often mistaken for Shakira at clubs, you will look awesome doing Zumba. But just about everyone else looks ridiculous performing the hip thrusts—especially at 10 on a Saturday morning. I am almost certainly the worst dancer in my class, but no one looks great—and that gives me a beatific sense of blending in. I can shake all I want without worrying someone will laugh (unless I trip while walking into class, which has happened—and in which case I deserve it). Furthermore, Zumba is highly repetitive. This makes me think I would have been much better off growing up in the 1950s—learning the Jitterbug must be easier than learning whatever free-form grinding kids do these days. (I did get an A in my college ballroom dance class, but I think that’s because I showed up and wasn’t high—my version of the polka mostly involved hopping. Grade inflation—it’s a problem.)

Anyway, Zumba’s helped me lose about 15 or 20 pounds. But even better than that? I think I am getting really close to finding the beat. Someone has even created a Zumba routine using the Macarena. In two or three years, I just might be ready to try it.

Pat Robertson: Video Game Murder Basically Like Killing Someone in Real Life

Torie Bosch — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 15:41:00 GMT

Who better to give video game advice than 83-year-old Pat Robertson?

On Friday, noted technology ethicist Robertson devoted precious minutes of The 700 Club to answer the conundrum of a viewer named Nathaniel. Nathaniel emailed The 700 Club to ask: “What do you think the Bible has to say about video games? Is there a way to interpret the Bible for ‘virtual sins’?”

Of course there is a way to interpret the Bible for virtual sins, Nathaniel. And virtual sins are just as hellacious as IRL transgressions. Sayeth Robertson, who admits he has never played a video game, “If you’re murdering somebody in cyberspace, in a sense you’re performing the act.” With violent video games, books, TV, movies, “you lose your sensitivity to God,” Robertson says. “[Y]ou will grow dead in your heart. That’s the danger of all of this.”

Just to be safe, we should assume this does not only apply to usual suspects like Grand Theft Auto. “Think of the number of animal abuse charges that could be leveled at me for all those turtles I stomped on in Super Mario Bros.,” Timothy Geigner writes on Techdirt.

No word yet on how Robertson feels about the idea of video games as a religion. But we can assume he would be apoplectic—or, if you prefer, apocalyptic.

Infographic: The Biggest Data Breaches in the History of Cybersecurity

Torie Bosch — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 20:32:00 GMT

Government surveillance may be getting most of the attention this summer, but your digital privacy is also at risk when companies' databases are invaded by hackers (or by whoops-a-daisy release of user data—I'm looking at you, Facebook).

The infographic below, created by David McCandless of Information Is Beautiful, shows the biggest breaches in cybersecurity since 2004, with the size of the bubble indicating the extent of the leak. The graphic also indicates the method of leakage; the number of incidents connected with lost or stolen computers may surprise you.

Click on the image to expand, and then maybe look into some better personal security practices.

This Is What Global Warming Sounds Like

Torie Bosch — Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:22:19 GMT

The music may sound classical, but this song could also be called “The Climate Change Blues.”

In this clever composition created by University of Minnesota student Daniel Crawford (with an assist from professor Scott St. George), you don’t just watch temperatures rise—you hear it. Each note in “A Song of Our Warming Planet” represents a year. As you would suspect, the higher-pitched notes indicate warmer temperatures. The video description explains:

“During a run of cold years between the late 1800s and early 20th century, the cello is pushed towards the lower limit of its range. The piece moves into the mid-register to track the modest warming that occurred during the 1940s. As the sequence approaches the present, the cello reaches higher and higher notes, reflecting the string of warm years in the 1990s and 2000s.”

The music begins around 1:30. If temperatures get too much higher, it may be too hot for the cello to handle—kind of like when meteorologists had to create a new color for weather maps after an Australian heat wave.

Via IO9.

Character Studies: Zoey, Nurse Jackie

Torie Bosch — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:09:53 GMT

During the fourth season, my Slate colleague June Thomas wrote that Nurse Jackie had become “surprisingly good,” in large part because of a well-crafted plot shakeup that placed a fragile Jackie in treatment for her painkiller addiction. It reinvigorated a show that had become rather predictable: Jackie gets loaded, screws up, lies, and then tries to get out of it.

In the fifth season, which wrapped up last night, Nurse Jackie made another smart change: allowing Jackie’s mentee nurse Zoey, played beautifully by Merritt Wever, to come into her own. For most of Nurse Jackie’s run, Zoey has been earnest, devoted to her job and her patients, but she lacked the gravitas and authority that are so important in an E.R. nurse—and in a woman. Her immaturity was best illustrated by her love of cutesy scrubs. But in Season 5, even though she still showed up wearing pink flowers, she demonstrated new command of her job. When a woman went into labor on the waiting-room floor, she took control of the situation and, after receiving the OK from Jackie, delivered the baby right there.

In fact, her relationship with Jackie changed a great deal, becoming more that of equals than of boss and employee—both in the hospital and outside of it. She moved out of Jackie’s house, for instance, and into her own crappy but beloved apartment. (Admittedly, she waited until Jackie gave the OK in that situation, too.) And when she found out that Jackie was holding onto a single prescription pill, Zoey confronted her and expressed her concern—in a detached but loving way. She spoke out instead of fretting quietly, and when Jackie was in the wrong in the finale last night, Zoey demanded that she apologize.

But her growth is probably best demonstrated by her relationship with the brusque new chief of the E.R., Dr. Prentiss. After an officer was shot on duty, for instance, Prentiss was overly clinical in describing his injuries to the assembled cops waiting to hear about their colleague. When she realized that he wasn’t answering their single, unspoken question, Zoey gently offered to hold Prentiss’ file for him, so he couldn’t hide behind the medical jargon. By doing so, she allowed Prentiss to retain his authority, but she also forced him to connect with people. Zoey has always been an emotional character, but now, instead of that being a liability, it’s become an asset. As she explained to Prentiss in another episode, she really likes cranky people, like her mother’s dog. And Jackie. It’s funny and honest, without being cheesy—and it establishes her as something of a feelings interpreter.

Early in the season, she seemed to be just as goofy and oblivious as ever—in Episode 4, when Jackie asked her to distract Prentiss so they can handle a difficult patient situation, Zoey agreed and said that it would be easy—“He’s naturally very drawn to me.” Jackie’s response was practically an indulgent pat on the head. But it turned out that she’s right: Over the episodes that followed, Zoey and Prentiss developed a charming chemistry and ended up sleeping together. I’m kind of a cranky person, too, which may explain why I like Zoey so much. I just hope that in real life, I’d like her—instead of being annoyed.

Correction, June 17, 2013: This post originally misspelled Merritt Wever's last name.

Previous Character Studies:
Betty Draper, Mad Men
Cersei, Game of Thrones
Patty Hewes, Damages
Dexter Morgan, Dexter
Adam Sackler, Girls
Shirley Bennett, Community
April Ludgate, Parks and Recreation
Tyrion Lannister, Game of Thrones
Pamela, Louie
Sterling Archer, Archer
Dougie, Enlightened

Arrested Development, Season 4

Torie Bosch — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:01:00 GMT

In Slate’s Arrested Development TV Club, two fans will IM about each episode of Season 4 once they finish watching it. Today, Future Tense editor Torie Bosch and video producer Chris Wade recap Episode 9, "Smashed."

Chris Wade: It's hard to talk about specific episodes after having finished the whole thing. Have you finished?

Torie Bosch: No, this is the last episode I’ve watched.

Wade: For me, everything feels just like a piece of one giant story, and the rewatch was more a reminder of what I can’t talk about, even though I know it's implied in the 'sode. Which in itself is interesting, and I think says a lot about the ultimate strengths of the season as a whole.

Bosch: I'll trust you to hint—without spoilers, of course—where my viewing and predictions will end up as off-note as Argyle Austero.

Wade: Perfecto. (By the way, that word is foreshadowing.)

Bosch: Episode 8 seemed to go on forever. But this one reinvigorated me. So much terrible behavior!

Wade: Yes, I had been looking forward to more Tobias, and I found it pretty satisfying, save for maybe fewer never-nude jokes and less expertly-worded gay innuendo than I would have hoped. But overall, it was a pretty perfect little Tobias story of him insinuating his nonexistent performing career into where it doesn't belong.

Bosch: His direction of The Fantastic Four (or The Fantastic Three and Lousy One) was arguably even more disastrous than his directorial debut with the gender-bending Much Ado About Nothing.

Wade: And both times it all goes awry because he's trying to play matchmaker, first for Steve/George Michael/Maeby, and this time for himself. Connections!

Bosch: But at least we've seen a little growth: He's ditched the "analrapist" title for "theralist." He loves combo titles: Did you see that he identified himself as "Tobias Funke, MD, S.O."—for sex offender?

Wade: His weird lack of shame about being a sex offender is perfectly in character. But how great is Maria Bamford as DeBrie? So completely hapless.

Bosch: When Tobias was musing rhetorically to a wasted DeBrie about whether he “did this” to her or she to him, and she said, "You to me," faintly as he ignored her, I felt that acute sadness that happens from time to time in Arrested Development land.

Wade: Then immediately after when she says "Let me die!" as fluid leaks out of her mouth ... hilariously disturbing.

I find some of the directing in this season weird and distracting—particularly the framing of over-the-shoulder conversation shots so you can never tell if the two actors having the conversation are actually there together. But I do love the split-screen montages they do that allow you to watch a single character and the whole group at the same time, like when they split-screen a close-up of DeBrie having a nervous breakdown with a wide shot of the entire cast rehearsing choreography. It’s a cool way to show as many parts of the story as possible simultaneously, which is kind of what this season is all about.

Bosch: Oh! And what about the almost-return of Gobias industries? The idea of GOB and Tobias getting together to transform Sudden Valley into a community for sex offenders is genius.

Wade: Yes, a great idea for GOB, a terrible idea for Michael. Speaking of that scene: One of my new favorite running jokes is everyone eating Parmesan cheese and mustard as a meal.

Bosch: I hadn't caught that! How clever—and nauseating. Like so much AD humor.

Wade: I wish the MST3K guys had had a line or two when they showed them watching Imagine Generic's B-movie version of Apollo 13.

Bosch: I thought the same thing. What a waste of getting the rights to MST3K.

Wade: Maybe that was the whole joke of it? Seems like it could be.

Bosch: One thing I liked about this episode was that it showed what a terrible theralist Tobias is, too—especially in his handling of the Bieber-esque Mark Cherry. Maybe the universe was right to steer him away from medicine. But now he's feeling another push: He feels "the universe putting up all sorts of walls between me and my dreams." Again with the walls.

Wade: Connections!

Bosch: In another demonstration of just how terrible Tobias is at advice, we see him coaching Michael on how to force Ron Howard to break up with his "num num.” How far our hero has fallen! Michael’s taking advice from the man who once said, "I know you're the big marriage expert—oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, your wife is dead!"

Wade: Yeah, that's a great example of the horrible feedback loop of the Bluth family—where Michael allows himself to be goaded into confrontation by Tobias. Though I would sincerely relish a chance to yell, “You are ruining my life, Ron Howard!”

Bosch: I bet Ron Howard gets that a lot.

Wade: His cameos aren't great, but I do appreciate all the little (mostly hat-based) jokes they give him—the "hat on" haircut, the fact that there's a giant wooden cap brim over his office door.

Bosch: One moment from that scene that I hope will become a boomerang joke is when Tobias is trying to convince Howard to give him the rights to the Fantastic Four. His big pitch: that then Tobias will owe Howard a favor. I would love, in a couple of episodes, to see whether Howard regrets dismissing that offer.

Wade: I can neither confirm nor deny.

"The Apocalypse Is Complicated": A Future Tense Event Recap

Torie Bosch — Thu, 16 May 2013 15:27:25 GMT

The bad news: It is very likely that sometime in the next million years, Earth will face an extinction event of some sort. According to Annalee Newitz, we could be “locked up in ice, bombarded with cosmic radiation, ripped up by mega volcanoes. … An invasive species could take over the planet, the earth could be shattered by asteroid impacts, and it could also be choked up by greenhouse gases.”

The good news: Even if billions die, there will still be billions left. “There’s always survivors,” she says.

Newitz is editor of the sci-fi site io9 and the author of the new book Scatter, Adapt, and Remember: How Humans Will Survive a Mass Extinction. On Wednesday night, at a Future Tense happy hour in Washington, D.C., she discussed her book with Megan Garber, who covers technology for the Atlantic’s technology channel. Extinction, apocalypse, climate farming, Exodus, space elevators, “good Death Stars”—it was your usual D.C. cocktail chatter.

Newitz told the audience at the Science Club that she has long nursed “a fascination for doom and apocalypse,” so when she started writing the book, she envisioned it as a “nonfiction version of a Godzilla movie.” But in looking at the history of extinction events—both before and during humanity’s time on Earth so far—and assessing the risks that will face us in the million years to come, she realized that in truth, “The apocalypse is complicated.” And we need to start planning for it.

Scatter, Adapt, and Remember emphasizes the vital role storytelling plays when it comes to human survival. The way we share information can shape how others see the world and the actions they take. For instance, the story of Exodus is a great lesson for long-term survival, she argued. It demonstrates how there can be “bravery in retreat”: If it’s clear that things are going in a terrible direction, “Don’t stay and fight. Leave.” In this case, that means “we need to be putting ourselves on a path toward space colonization, because the Earth is a dangerous place,” she says. (Newitz also recently discussed in Slate why humanity needs a plan to escape to space.)

Another important part of the Exodus story, Newitz says, is that the Jews who wandered the desert knew that they themselves would not make it to the Promised Land. But future generations would—and we, too, need to think beyond the present day. Much as she would like to, Newitz realizes that she herself may never make it to Mars. She wants others to make the trip there eventually, but humanity isn’t great at taking the long view. “We like short-term payoffs. We like pleasures that happen in our lifetimes. We aren’t going to be satisfied if someone says, ‘Hey, in a thousand years, it’s going to be great.’ ”

Whatever threats come our way in the millennia to come, Newitz is optimistic. “The one thing I know for sure is we will survive,” she says. “We have all the characteristics of a survivor species. It’s just, what the hell will we look like at the end of this?”

How to Have a Constructive Discussion About Drones: A Future Tense Event Recap

Torie Bosch — Tue, 07 May 2013 23:30:31 GMT

When it comes to drones, people can get a little worked up. Of course, that makes sense, given that the most high-profiled related issues—targeted killings and potentially intrusive surveillance—are also very high-stakes.

But shrillness and emotion seldom create reasonable action. At “The Drone Next Door,” a Future Tense event held at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, speakers tried to look at drones—and their domestic applications, in particular—in a more nuanced, constructive way. As the day progressed, several ideas that may be most crucial to productive debate about the coming eyes in American skies emerged. Some we can, and must, implement now—but others are works in progress.

1. Settle on vocabulary.
Many industry insiders bristle at the word drone. Michael Toscano, president and CEO of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, said that he thinks drone is inaccurate because in reality, “someone is operating the system.” That’s why he and his group prefer “unmanned vehicle systems” or, for aircraft, “unmanned aerial vehicles.” But Slate national correspondent William Saletan, who opened the day with a presentation about drones in popular culture, says too bad: The word drone is “locked in,” and just wait until it “becomes a verb.” In response to Saletan’s remark, AUVSI good-naturedly tweeted, “Challenge accepted!” But given the surge in drone awareness and the rather jargon-y awkwardness of “UAV,” perhaps this is a battle not worth fighting.

2. Realize that drones are not necessarily the real issue.
One of the recurring themes of the day was, What’s the real difference between a drone and a guy with a camera, or a smartphone with a camera, or surveillance cameras that stud city streets?

Drones have become “a stand-in for all of these complex surveillance mechanisms,” like data from cellphones and social networking, or ubiquitous security cameras, said Daniel Rothenberg of Arizona State University. Similarly, in a presentation, Rosa Brooks, a New America fellow and Foreign Policy columnist who previously worked at the Defense Department, said that many of the discussions about drones’ military applications are “red herrings.” In reality, the discussions about drones are really debates about “the nature of modern warfare and how we define modern warfare."

3. Stay grounded.
It’s easy to get caught up in hyperbole here. But Konstantin Kakaes, a New America fellow who writes about technology, noted in a presentation that in the past, many military technologies failed to make the anticipated leap into domestic use. Despite predictions, we don’t all have helicopters—because it isn’t cost-effective. For now, drones make economic sense to use in the military, but for the most part, there isn’t a good reason to use them at home. They’re still too expensive, and they’re still too flawed.

But even if regulations permit increased drone use and the cost comes down, that doesn’t mean everyone needs to go get their own. Waite pointed out that drones can have sharp blades—and “a whole community of flying lawnmowers sounds terrifying,” he said. Finally, another important tempering factor to keep in mind is that “The bad actors are the ones that are going to get a lot of the press,” according to Joseph Lorenzo Hall of the Center for Democracy and Technology. While we need to talk about abuses of drones at home, we can’t assume that all uses fall into that category.

4. Discuss regulation smartly—not knee-jerkingly.
The ACLU’s Catherine Crump noted that though government surveillance strikes fear in people for now, the bigger concern may eventually be about private drone use—because at least the government can be regulated. Still, she cautioned, any restrictions on government surveillance won’t be worth “a hill of beans if the government can purchase the information from a private party.”

5. Don’t try to label the technology itself as “good” or “bad.”
Rothenberg believes that it’s “silly” to ask whether someone is “for or against drones.” Drones are just a tool, as panelists emphasized again and again.

Furthermore, while most headlines about drones focus on targeted killings overseas or dramatic invasions of privacy at home, many of our speakers noted the potential good uses for drones. MIT’s Missy Cummings thinks that they will transform agriculture; Toscano took that a step further, saying that they could help create better global food security. World Wildlife Fund President Carter Roberts talked about using drones to stop poachers in real time—not with weaponized aircraft, of course, but by alerting authorities in the ground. Robbie Hood of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration discussed drones’ potential to assess oil spills in remote areas of Alaska and said she is particularly excited about how drones can help bring science to the public. Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., thinks drones could help guide efforts to prevent and fight forest fires. The University of Nebraska’s Matthew Waite started the Drone Journalism Lab because, as you might guess, he thinks drones could help reporting. (He cautions, however, that he has come to realize that journalists are terrible drone pilots.) Don Roby, a captain in the Baltimore Police Department, says that law enforcement isn’t just interested in drones for surveillance, but also for “search and rescue, traffic accidents, fires, tactical ops.”

6. Don’t just say you want a “meaningful discussion.”
This lesson comes not from the event speakers, but the audience. Amie Stepanovich of the Electronic Privacy Information Censor tweeted, “The DC answer is always, more discussions! But rarely are they meaningful in practice.”

But take heart! Not all of the day was focused on such vagaries. There were more many substantive proposals and ideas as well. For instance, Hall called for drones to come with license plates of a sort, which will help both with safety and with transparency.

Frustratingly, so many of the challenges posed by domestic drones conflict with one another. As Crump pointed out, the ACLU “believes the First Amendment protects your right to take pictures, particularly in public places” even as it is concerned about “persistent aerial surveillance.” Drones can both offer and threaten freedom in that way.

Perhaps Hall summed it up best when saying, “The trick is … we want to integrate these things not only into our airspace but into society.” Furthermore, he added, “We can only predict so much. When it comes down to it we’ll have to really work this out”—and “work this out” means protecting people from unwanted surveillance by government, by business, and by their neighbors; integrating drones into the airspace in a safe manner; and allowing for hobbyists to create innovative small businesses.

But as complicated as it may be—and apologies for going back to the vague “discussion”—Rothenberg believes that “We’re lucky to have this drone debate” because of what it represents. “The word drone may be inaccurate,” he said, but “it carries with it a sense of foreboding and fear that I think is very real. … allowing for a discussion that previously just wasn’t quite coming to the fore.” The drone has “terrifying power that speaks to a future that’s uncertain.”

For more on why we’re transfixed by drones and how we should think about them, here are Slate pieces written by participants from today’s events and other smart commentators. You can also watch the entire event on the New America Foundation website.

“Drone Over America: We’ve seen what drones can do in Pakistan. So we’re not exactly thrilled about being watched by them at home,” by William Saletan.
“What the Drone Debate Is Really About: It’s not privacy or state power,” by Daniel Rothenberg.
“Eyes in the Sky: What the rise of the helicopter tells us about the future of domestic drones,” by Konstantin Kakaes.
“Privacy Concerns Shouldn’t Ground Journalism Drones,” by Nabiha Syed.
“No-Fly Zone: How ‘drone’ safety regulations can also help protect privacy,” by John Villasenor.
“The Golden Age of Privacy Is Over: But don’t blame drones,” by Brad Allenby.
“Why Americans Are Saying No to Domestic Drones: States and cities are increasingly passing legislation to stop the use of surveillance drones,” by Catherine Crump and Jay Stanley.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, the New America Foundation, and Arizona State University.

Is "Typosquatting" Ever OK?

Torie Bosch — Wed, 01 May 2013 18:42:56 GMT

You’re heading over to Facebook.com when your index finger slips, forcing you to type in something like “gacebook.com.” Before your mind registers the flub, you hit “enter,” and off you go. Now, instead of seeing what your eighth-grade boyfriend had for dinner, you’re faced with pop-ups and maybe even Facebook look-alike sites that are out to do evil.

That’s cybersquatting (or, more specifically, typosquatting), and Facebook doesn’t have to take it. In a case involving almost a dozen offending companies, a California judge has ruled that 105 domains like gacebook.com, gfacebook.com, and faacebok.com be turned over to Facebook. Furthermore, Facebook will get close to $2.8 million in damages.

Lots of companies have prevailed against typosquattors. As Mike Isaac points out on AllThingsD, though, “This case could be more significant … in that it’s among the first to result in the awarding of liability damages to the victor, potentially establishing a precedent for future similar cases.”

But it may be that not all typosquattors are out to profit from a slip of the finger. The New York Law Journal reports that the Gioconda Law Group—which itself specializes in cybersquatting and counterfeiting cases—sued Arthur Wesley Kenzie, a Canadian man who had registered the domain Giocondolaw.com (changing the final “a” in the law group’s name to an “o”). In addition to the website, he also set up email addresses. This, says Gioconda, is a clear violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

But Kenzie, who is a developer, says that he uses such misspelled domains as part of his research into cybersecurity. His lawyers claimed in court filings that he registered the site and created email accounts as part “information security research into a significant e-mail vulnerability that is not currently well understood.” On CircleID, Venkat Balasubramani writes, “Kenzie did not offer the domain names for sale, did not read the emails intended for the subject organization, and generally kept his whole scheme out of the public eye. Upon demand, he also offered to transfer the domain names to the organizations in question.”

In December, Gioconda, which is based in New York, filed a motion for partial judgment asking that the court rule Kenzie had violated ACPA. But the judge declined to do so now, writing:

"Defendants's alleged ideological, scholarly, and personal motives for squatting on the [domain name], while perhaps idiosyncratic, do not fall within the sphere of conduct targeted by the ACPA's bad faith requirement, If anything, given that defendant aims to both influence plaintiff's behavior and shape public understanding of what he perceives to be an important vulnerability in cyber security systems, this case arguably falls closer to cases involving parody and consumer complaint sites designated to draw public attention to various social, political, or economic issue."

Because it’s early in the case yet, Gioconda could eventually win against Kenzie.

The Enduring Wisdom of Tiger Eyes

Torie Bosch — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:31:00 GMT

To say “I love Judy Blume” is to say “I was once an adolescent girl who read.” It seems pointless to lavish praise on Blume’s work, because it’s been done so many times before, and deservedly. Hence the essay collection Everything I Needed to Know About Being a Girl I Learned From Judy Blume.

But even the YA writer par excellence has a standout work: Tiger Eyes, a gently wrenching story about teenage girl whose father is murdered during a robbery.

This week brought the first trailer for a film adaptation of Tiger Eyes. The movie, which will hit theaters and video on demand June 7, marks the first time a Blume book has been made for the big screen. Blume co-wrote the script with her son Lawrence, who also directed it—and for fans of the book, like me, that’s a relief. It is nearly impossible to imagine Blume would take part in a project that would distort or diminish the truth of Tiger Eyes.

Tiger Eyes was one of two books that helped me limp through the aftermath of my own father’s unexpected death. (The other was a sentimental novel beloved by grandmothers. I was an odd kid.) I was 11, a bit younger than 15-year-old Tiger Eyes protagonist Davey, but no matter—tweens love to think of themselves as a bit beyond their years. Many other details were different, too, of course. Davey’s family moves from Atlantic City, N.J., to Los Alamos, N.M., to escape the grief, while mine stayed put. But so many Davey’s feelings and experiences—her confusion, her resentment, her fear, her detachment, her sometimes odd behavior, her inability to decide whether she wants to be left alone or be with others—rang true, and that gave me comfort. If Judy Blume said that this was what adolescent grief should be, then what I was experiencing was OK.

Blume also captures beautifully the frequent inability of adults to help children in mourning. Rather than appearing neglectful or cruel, the grownups in Davey’s life are themselves struggling with mourning and internal conflict. Davey’s mother keeps it together for a few weeks before falling apart, spending most of her time in bed and on pain medication for migraines. Her aunt and uncle in Los Alamos, with whom the family moves in, mean well, but Davey seethes at their hypocrisies. Her uncle is a safety fanatic even as he works on the development of nuclear weapons. Her aunt, who wanted children but was unable to conceive, seems to relish a little too much having a wounded family in her care. Davey’s gradual realization that the adults around her are in turmoil, too, is a subtle lesson in something that can be very difficult for a grieving child to comprehend.

Halfway through the book, Davey picks a fight with her younger brother, trying to force him to say that he misses their father. Afterward, she regrets it. “It’s just that I have this need to talk about my father, with someone who knew him and loved him the way I did,” she narrates. I got it. And when Davey eventually begins to heal, it helped me imagine healing, too.

Smear Campaign

Torie Bosch — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:00:00 GMT

The first time a story about explosive baby poop showed up in my Facebook news feed, I was alarmed.

The culprit was an old acquaintance I haven’t spoken to in real life for years. I always thought of her as brilliant, practical, and rather private—which is why the status worried me. Were all of my brilliant, practical, and private friends—female and male—about to morph, one by one, into tedious child-obsessed ninnies? Would photos of trips to Peru and homebrew be replaced with Instagram snapshots of drool and breast pumps?

In her new book, STFU Parents: The Jaw-Dropping, Self-Indulgent, and Occasionally Rage-Inducing World of Parent Overshare, Blair Koenig documents this very phenomenon. Based on her popular blog by the same name, the quick-read book shows dozens of alarming Facebook posts submitted to Koenig by her readers. The offending parents detail everything from labor to potty training to tween girls starting their periods. They give strict instructions as to what Christmas presents are acceptable and guilt-trip friends about baby showers. They brag about their breast-feeding superiority, share their placenta art, and say that doctors don’t know as much as a mommy with Google. (“I mean, c’mon, I have the internet, I am not a total idiot,” says one mother who is unhappy with her pediatrician’s advice about combating constipation. Given that she also writes that “he doesn’t really care for my ideas on the vaccine schedule,” I wouldn’t be so quick to acquit her of the “total idiot” charge.) Some of my favorite STFU Parents blog posts—like a gift-grubber and a woman with very, very specific post-delivery expectations for her friends—don’t even make the book.

When I first started reading STFU Parents a couple of years ago, I thought: If this is what parenthood today entails, I might want to stick with my cats. Certainly lots of commenters on the blog agree, posting remarks like, “This is why I am never, ever having kids!” Parents have come back complaining that since Koenig isn’t a mother herself, she’s the one who “should STFU,” prompting the Daily Mail, where one can always get a balanced, nuanced look at social issues, to portray the blog as a battleground in the digital wars between the childless and the child proud. But I’ve come to think of the STFU blog and book as a public service to both people with kids and without, teaching both camps important lessons about how to be less offensive and clueless.

Koenig told the Atlantic Wire recently that the book is “a totally cohesive manual, an organized little etiquette guide and “a great baby shower gift.” Reading it can be a great reality check for sleep-deprived, anxious, and emotional parents: Before you hit submit on a Facebook post about an explosive diaper at 3 in the morning, ask yourself, “Would any of my friends submit this to STFU Parents? Would they be right if they did?” If so, then change the status to a message or email to a close friend who has been there or has a strong stomach. Save the bulk of the bragging for the kid’s grandparents, and try to refrain from posting “Wait until you’re a parent!” on every Facebook status in which someone complains about being tired. It can also serve as a corrective for parents who have gone over the obnoxious edge: Koenig once shared an email from a reader whose friend reformed after having read and absorbed the lessons of the blog.

But it’s a two-way street. The blog and book don’t just offer cautionary tales to parents in danger of falling into the baby hole. It can help childless folks like me understand just how hard parenting can be. Over the last several years, we’ve seen an explosion in warts-and-all blogs, books, and articles about conceiving, pregnancy, childbirth, and childrearing, like Confessions of a Scary Mommy and Bad Mother. But a well crafted book—especially one written specifically for mothers—can’t quite capture the horrifying parenting moments the way a poorly thought-out Facebook status can. Though I mock them, I’m a little grateful for the parents who have hit “post” on a really disgusting diaper story, or the smug whine about people who don’t smile at their baby. Not very grateful—just a little. Because those unpolished slices of life can let someone considering a child in on the kinds of things people normally don’t tell you.

Not every STFU Parents blog post has some hidden value—I can’t say anything good about the woman who has to post that she is holding a paternity-test “open house,” and the “mama drama” entries in which mothers battle it out are for entertainment purposes only. But much as I hate to read them, the completely uncensored, unabashed gross-out stories and the breast-thumping “mama bear” entries have made me a little more understanding of the indignities and stresses of being a parent. More importantly, they have really made me appreciative of the friends and family members who limit their parenting content on social media to the occasional photo or genuinely funny story.

Koenig is right, then: This should be a baby shower gift—and also a favor for shower guests. Now I regret my initial irritation with the smart friend who posted about her baby’s explosive poop. Maybe she shouldn’t have published it, but having enjoyed STFU Parents for so long, and having heard more war stories in the interim, I have a lot more sympathy for her. For someone as brilliant, practical, and private as her to publish that one, it must have been bad.

Clash of the Scientists: Watch Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, and Brian Greene Rumble

Torie Bosch — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:07:00 GMT

Science disputes can be ugly, but they aren’t often physical—even in jest.

However, a couple of weeks ago, at a panel at Arizona State University, science all-stars Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, and Brian Greene* came to mock blows over … motives for funding scientific research.

It’s like a nerdy WWE, and it’s glorious.

It all went down at a panel titled “The Storytelling of Science,” which also featured Tracy Day, Ira Flatow, Lawrence Krauss, and Neal Stephenson. You can read more about it on Future Tense, or you can watch the whole discussion: Part 1 is here (87 minutes) and Part 2 is here (45 minutes).

Disclosure: ASU is a partner in Future Tense with Slate and the New America Foundation.

Correction, April 11, 2013: This post originally misspelled Brian Greene's last name.

More Bad News for Justin Bieber: Almost Half of His Twitter Followers Are Fake

Torie Bosch — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:15:06 GMT

2013 has been a rough year for Justin Bieber, whose antics—like with gossip writers and even Nightline wondering whether the 19-year-old singer is in the midst of a meltdown. (You know things are bad when Chris Brown says he’s praying for you.) January brought him a little good news, at least: He became the “King of Twitter,” beating out Lady Gaga to become the person with the most followers.

But it appears he is a pretender to the Twitter throne: Socialbakers, a company that analyzes social media stats, estimates that almost half of his 37.3 million Twitter followers are fake (16.7 million) or inactive (2.6 million). If you eliminate the phony and hibernating accounts, Bieber has 17.8 million “good” followers—which puts him behind Lady Gaga and her 19 million “real” followers. As if it wasn’t bad enough that he lost the Klout crown to Barack Obama last year.

Chauvinist Pygmalion

Torie Bosch — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:30:00 GMT

There’s no shortage of historical figures whose private actions failed to live up to their public moralizing. (Thomas Jefferson, anyone?) But few embraced that hypocrisy as jaw-droppingly as Thomas Day, the subject of Wendy Moore’s How to Create the Perfect Wife: Britain’s Most Ineligible Bachelor and His Enlightened Quest to Train the Ideal Mate. The Pygmalion-gone-wrong story of a man who adopted two orphans in hopes of making one his wife is bizarre, true, and thoroughly compelling, touching on the folly of uncritically embracing extreme parenting methods, the futility of trying to force someone to be who you want, and the danger of philosophy when wielded by young men who don’t understand it.

An intellectual who lived in the 18^th century, Day held many views that were impressively progressive and egalitarian for his time. He campaigned to end slavery and supported the American revolutionaries. Though wealthy, he lived simply and gave much of his fortune to charitable causes. He preferred plain clothes, once requesting that his tailor make his new suits “as free from tawdriness, & Frippery as possible.” He was one of the first to write a book specifically for children, and he didn’t even like to eat meat or kill spiders. Though his manners were lacking (“unsuitable to his rank in life,” one suitor’s father apparently complained) and his personality off-putting and dour, several influential writers and scientists embraced him, considering his eccentricities as mere side effects of his exceptional morality.

But for all his talk about liberty, Day was, frankly, a hypocritical misogynist—even for his time. “If the whole female Sex cannot furnish one single rational Woman,” he whined, “I must make use of them in that Manner for which alone Nature has perhaps intended.” Yet he very much wanted a wife, and his requirements for her make Julia Allison—she of the 88-point checklist—look laid back. Mrs. Day was to be pretty—he was particularly insistent that she possess plump, white arms—but not vain or fashionable; smart but not above her station; psychologically and physically constituted for housekeeping (he wanted few if any servants); and receptive to his criticism, which by Day’s design would be constant. He could occasionally convince a woman to consider him romantically—he was engaged several times—but these entanglements fell apart once the women realized exactly how dreary their married lives would be. So in his early 20s, he set forth on his life-defining scheme to raise his own wife.

Like many an Enlightenment chap, Day was quite taken with Rousseau—especially Emile: or, On Education. Emile follows its titular hero through an unconventional boyhood: Exposure to cold and the elements foster Emile’s physical hardiness, while freedom to pursue his intellectual passions develops his strong sense of curiosity and morality. Rousseau tried in vain to tell his readers that Emile was a philosophical treatise, not a childrearing guide, but nevertheless some misguided parents in France and England followed it as rigorously as a new mom in the 1950s would her Dr. Spock. Day decided to apply the Emile methods to a girl, and to eventually make her his wife. Well, two girls, since one always needs a backup.

With the help of a married friend and a very generous donation that likely helped lower any red flags, Day, then in his early 20s, was able to acquire two lovely orphans, ages 11 and 12. (They were technically “apprenticed” to his married friend.) Soon after, he changed the girls’ names to Sabrina and Lucretia, and off the odd trio went to France. The purpose was not to imbue in them a French sophistication, but to isolate them from any other English speakers, so that they would be free from other influence. Day seemed to hate most women, but he held particular disregard for French women and the power he believed they held in their marriages: “The most disgusting sight of all is to see that sex, whose weakness of body, and imbecility of mind, can only entitle them to our compassion and indulgence, assuming an unnatural dominance, and by regulating the customs, the manners, the lives and the opinions of the other sex, by their own caprices, weakness, and ignorance.”

After a rocky sojourn in France, in which he taught the girls to read but also nearly drowned them in an attempt to toughen them physically, Day gave his final rose to Sabrina and sent the other off with a little money. He then spirited the poor 13-year-old whom he intended to make his bride off to the English countryside, where, among other things, he tortured her physically by dripping hot wax on her back and arms while insisting she not scream in pain. But she did not know what goal she was working toward, as Day never disclosed that he had hoped to marry one of them. They had thought they were training to be housemaids.

The question that runs throughout How to Create a Perfect Wife is: How did neither Day nor his do-gooding abettors realize that this was torture? “The philanthropist who could not pass a beggar without parting his money, the nature lover who felt he did not have the right to stamp on a spider let alone mistreat a horse, the humanitarian who opposed slavery because it was the ‘absolute dependence of one man upon another,’ was utterly convinced he had every right to keep a young woman subject to his total command and groom her to meet his desires,” Moore writes. Elsewhere she wonders whether Day was oblivious to the cruelty he inflicted or whether he thought “he had every right—as a wealthy, upper-class, educated man—to enact whatever cruelty he could dream up in his quest to create the perfect wife.”

And why didn’t any of his friends try to stop him? They knew that he was living with (though there’s no evidence he actually slept with) a pretty, malleable girl. Many in his circle were educated, progressive; some of the women, like writer Anna Seward, became friends with his charge, even though their letters suggest they were fully aware of the hot wax and other maltreatment Sabrina was subjected to. She existed in an unprotected social limbo—“a curious hybrid of privileged daughter and unpaid skivvy,” as Moore puts it—for a year before they finally pressured him to send her off to boarding school. But even then, Sabrina remained under Day’s control emotionally and financially, with Day considering her as a potential spouse for several more years.

Moore’s subject is appalling enough that it somehow feels wrong to find much of the material laughable—but nevertheless, it is. Day may have been some sort of genius, but his wildly off-mark interpretation of Rousseau should be included as a cautionary tale in all introductory philosophy classes. (See also: Jared Loughner and the troubled young men who cling to Nietzsche.) Doubling down on misinterpretation is a path to disaster—and certainly dour Day’s pursuit seems to have brought him little happiness.

But it’s also a cautionary tale to new parents who are desperate for a guiding philosophy. After all, if you ignore the (utterly, utterly creepy) part about Day wanting to make Sabrina his wife, his story is at its heart one of a man trying to keep one eye on a parenting guide and the other on his kid. In fact, maybe we should blame Rousseau for the endless, excruciating parent-blogger battles over whether we should let kids be kids, or instill discipline, or breast-feed to age 5. Moore writes that Emile “kickstarted a debate between huggers and hard-liners, between carrot and stick, which would ricochet down the centuries" and "would change not just educational practice but basic ideas about childhood fundamentally and forever.” From Emile, then, we can trace those who would hew rigidly to attachment, minimalist, or authoritarian parenting—and also those who would drive themselves crazy trying to find a style that’s just right. Day was far too busy taking Rousseau literally to pay attention to his ward, who was actually quite fond of him until she learned about the true nature of his experiment.

Given that Day tried to mold not just Sabrina, but also a friend’s son and every woman he ever saw romantically, perhaps the most karmically delicious part of How to Create the Perfect Wife is when Day himself tries to become someone he is not. Under the sway of a fashionable woman, he heads to France for his own dramatic makeover, adopting his much-loathed frippery and remaking his appalling manners. But when he returns to claim his lady love, everyone is aghast: He is completely unconvincing. He quickly discards his new look and returns to the simple life he idealized so joylessly. But in the end, his grander, more awful experiment made him look more a fool than those whose shallowness he so despised.

---

How to Create the Perfect Wife: Britain’s Most Ineligible Bachelor and His Enlightened Quest To Train the Ideal Mate by Wendy Moore. Basic Books

See all the pieces in this month’s Slate Book Review.
Sign up for the Slate Book Review monthly newsletter.

On Facebook, "Like" Can Mean "Dislike." Get Over It.

Torie Bosch — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:18:55 GMT

When someone posts sad news to Facebook—the illness or death of a loved one, the loss of a job—or shares one of life’s little annoyances, like a particularly frustrating coffee spill, the sympathetic responses frequently include some variation of, “That’s why we need a ‘dislike’ button.”

For the devoted disliker, there are some options, like the Hater app and browser extensions. They are poor substitutes, but they’ll have to do, it seems. When Bob Baldwin, a Facebook product engineer, took part in an Ask Me Anything on Reddit on Tuesday, someone wondered whether we’ll ever see a “dislike” button. Baldwin responded:

“Actions on Facebook tend to focus on positive social interactions. Like is the lightest-weight way to express positive sentiment. I don't think adding a light-weight way to express negative sentiment would be that valuable. I know there are times when it'd make sense, like when a friend is having a rough day, or got into a car accident like my sister yesterday (she's okay!). For these times, a nice comment from a friend goes a long way.”

Baldwin is right that a few words of support would likely mean more to a sad Facebook friend than hitting a “dislike” button. But there’s another reason why we don’t need “dislike”: On Facebook, “Like” doesn’t mean like anymore.

At its light-weight heart, pushing the button really says “I hear you,” “Uh-huh,” “I acknowledge this,” or “Yup.” It says, “I read this and thought about it for a second.” Frequently, or even most of the time, genuine feelings of positivity are a big part of the “I acknowledge this”—you do like the photo from your friend’s vacation or her witticism about her subway trip home. But genuinely liking it isn’t the driving force behind the click—the motivation is to let the person know that you looked and considered, rather than skimming past her posts to find a cute cat video from someone else.

If we can accept that the “like” button is really about letting someone know that you acknowledge what they posted, then we can dispense with the “dislike” chatter that has been going on since Facebook unleashed the thumbs-up in February 2009.

You can dislike the idea all you want, but since Facebook won’t be giving you the thumbs-down any time soon, you might as well acknowledge it.

Via BetaBeat.

DARPA Robotic Arms Can (Almost, Excruciatingly Slowly) Change a Tire

Torie Bosch — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 15:52:03 GMT

Auto mechanics don’t need to worry about their jobs quite yet. But a video from DARPA’s Autonomous Robotic Manipulation program could give hope to anyone who struggles to change a tire.

In the video below, which is sped up 24x, robotic arms remove a tire with the help of a tool. They do not, alas, put a new one on—but the researchers are getting there. The video shows “the old hands and not the new hands, and they did not quite have the dexterity to thread the nut onto the bolt in a way that it doesn’t cross the thread,” Gill Pratt from DARPA tells the New York Times.

Robotic arms and hands from the DARPA program could eventually be used to create better, low-cost prosthetics as well as machines that can be sent into dangerous situations—like to examine IEDs.

In real time, the DARPA tire-removing robot is moving excruciatingly slowly. But it could be worse—a video from 2010 that showed robotic arms folding towels had to be sped up 50x.

Via IEEE Spectrum/New York Times.

Neil deGrasse Tyson on Van Gogh's Role in Space Exploration and Other Great Tales of Science

Torie Bosch — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:34:25 GMT

Science panels don’t normally involve a striptease, even a G-rated one.

But on Saturday, March 30, Neil deGrasse Tyson took off his shirt to prove a point about the stars, science, and art.

It happened at Arizona State University during “The Science of Storytelling,” a panel featuring Tyson, Science Friday’s Ira Flatow, World Science Festival Executive Director Tracy Day, physicist Brian Greene, atheism rock star Richard Dawkins, science fiction writer Neal Stephenson, Bill Nye the Science Guy, and host Lawrence Krauss.

ASU’s Origins Project, which is directed by Krauss, sponsored the panel as part of a series of weekend events celebrating science, reason, and stories. (Disclosure: ASU is a partner with Slate and the New America Foundation in Future Tense, and Krauss is a regular Future Tense contributor.) As part of the festivities, the radio show Science Friday broadcast live from ASU, and there was also a Friday night screening of and discussion about The Unbelievers, a documentary following Krauss and Dawkins as they travel the world to promote atheism and skeptical thinking. Cameron Diaz, who appears briefly in The Unbelievers, even took to the stage with Krauss, Dawkins, and authors Ian McEwan and Cormac McCarthy to discuss the film. (Upon introducing Diaz to the audience, Krauss remarked that he initially met her at World Science Fest a few years back—and during their first conversation, he apologized to her for having been surprised to see her there.)

In his opening remarks at “The Science of Storytelling” on Saturday, Krauss said, “One of the things I like to tell students … not all the problems are solved. There’s still an incredible need to understand things in the universe.” By telling the human stories behind the science, we can stop making it feel like something that was “done by dead white men.” Accordingly, each panelist told a tale (or several) about science—and that’s where Tyson’s shirt comes in.

Tyson was riffing on a familiar theme: art’s relationship with science. For eons, he said, artists had a responsibility to paint primarily what they saw. But with the advent of photography—science!—“it was no longer the obligation of the artist to capture reality.” That’s when he shucked his beige button-down to display a T-shirt bearing Van Gogh’s Starry Night. (Tyson’s office at the American Museum of Natural History boasts both a Starry Night print and a Starry Night pillow, which he showed off in a Science Friday video in March 2012.)

Van Gogh, he said,

didn’t call the painting Sleepy Village, Cypress Tree, Church Steeple, Hills. It is the first painting that I know of … [in which] the background is the subject of the painting, and that background is the night sky, and it [has] elevated the cosmos to become fair game to the artist. I submit to you that science, scientific discovery, especially cosmic discovery, does not become mainstream until the artists embrace the fruits of those discoveries. So I applaud Vincent van Gogh for thinking that the sky is what mattered more than anything in the foreground for this painting.

Tyson famously criticized director James Cameron over the night sky portrayed in Titanic as the ship sinks. After receiving a “snarky” email from Tyson, Cameron corrected the stars for the film’s 10^th anniversary rerelease. So, Tyson said at ASU, people have often asked him why he doesn’t object to the untrue-to-life celestial bodies seen in Starry Night.

I was asked, given how nitpicky I was about the wrong sky over Kate Winslet as she floated on that plank … what do I think about the Van Gogh sky? Clearly that’s not accurate. My reply was, “In the case of the artist, I don’t want them to represent reality because I have that via my own telescopes. I want and need the artist to take me to new places, and the new place that Van Gogh took me not the sky as it is but the sky as he felt it. And the more of us that feel the universe, the better off we will be in this world.”

As he wrapped up, Krauss interjected, “You notice that Pluto is not on this shirt.”

“Get over it,” shot back Tyson, who has confessed to “driv[ing] the getaway car” in Pluto’s demotion from planetary status.

Much of the evening was devoted to pointing out just how straight-up cool science is—and the 3,000-person crowd reveled in it, especially during raucous disputes between panelists over space privatization, math as the “language of the universe,” and whether we could ever find out what consciousness really is. During a particularly contentious bout, Tyson stood up as if to go after Greene—and Nye held him back as Greene fled.

But the panelists turned serious at moments. “If we only talk about how fun science is, we don’t do it justice,” Dawkins said. In recognition of one of science’s less-admirable facets, Krauss concluded the night with a frank acknowledgment: that Tracy Day was the only woman on the eight-person panel. Krauss said that he hopes that that won’t be the case much longer. The speakers were “the old guard,” Krauss said. “And I’m hoping that we will encourage young women to go into science and go into communicating about science so when we have this panel in the future, we’ll have an all-female panel.”

That would be a story worth hearing.

Missing Vial of Dangerous Virus Highlights Security Problems at U.S. Labs

Torie Bosch — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:42:12 GMT

Let’s start with the good news: The vial of Guanarito, a rare disease found only in Venezuelan rodents, that was reported missing from a Texas lab on Wednesday is probably nothing to worry about. First of all, there’s no evidence that Guanarito can be transmitted from person to person—only from rodent to person (though when that happens, primarily to “male agricultural workers,” it isn’t pleasant). Nor does it appear that the vial was spirited away by an evildoer—more likely, it was destroyed after accidentally falling to the floor, Galveston National Laboratory scientific director Scott Weaver tells the Houston Chronicle. Galveston National Laboratory is housed at the University of Texas Medical Branch. Reports the Chronicle:

“We don't think anything that happened this past week endangers the community," Weaver said. "We think this is an error that any one facility is inevitable and we are going to improve to prevent this in the future."

It isn't comforting to think it’s “inevitable” that dangerous infections could go missing “at any one facility.” But a report released today by the Government Accountability Office jibes with Weaver’s assessment. In a follow-up to a similar 2009 study, the GAO investigated the safety procedures of high-containment laboratories and “found a continued lack of national standards for the design, construction, commissioning, and operation of high-containment laboratories.” Because of the absence of standards, the report continues, “each laboratory can be designed, constructed, and maintained according to local requirements. This will make it difficult to be able to assess and guarantee safety.”

It cites the example of a power outage at the CDC that was caused by construction workers at a nearby site accidentally cutting a cable. (Comforting, isn’t it?) “This incident highlighted the risks inherent in relying on local building codes to ensure the safety of high-containment laboratories, as there are no building codes and testing procedures specifically for those laboratories,” says the GAO report. Another problem: Labs are frequently working on similar projects—and duplicating efforts increases the potential for dangerous mistakes.

Basically, “the labs are a hot mess,” Kelsey D. Atherton writes for Popular Science. But they don’t have to be, he thinks: “With simple federal action, like establishing standards for research labs and coordinating the nation's biodefense research strategy, these problems should be perfectly mitigated before any real problems occur.”

Google Shows Off Voice Recognition by Letting You Title Silent Film Clips

Torie Bosch — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:19:56 GMT

Unless you’re talking to someone on Skype, most of us prefer to interact with our computers by typing, not speaking out loud. But Google has been working hard on voice recognition, as demonstrated by the recent roll-out of the Web Speech API for Chrome. To demonstrate just how well it works, they’ve released a neat little tool that lets you add your voice to classic silent-film clips.

Just open up Chrome (yes, it must be Chrome) and head over to PeanutGalleryFilms.com. There, you can select a black-and-white segment. As it plays, any words you vocalize will appear as old-timey titles.

The voice recognition isn’t yet perfect; as the Peanut Gallery “about” page admits, you can’t use proper nouns, and if you want punctuation, you have to say “comma” or “question mark” aloud. (I tested this out with the 1902 film A Trip to the Moon. As actors ventured out of their spacecraft and onto the surface of the moon, I said, “There’s Elon Musk.” Google rendered that as “There’s a long mask.”)

But all pickiness aside, it’s a fun tool that could serve Google well. Responses might help the company refine its voice recognition. Perhaps it will also help those who use neither Siri nor Google Voice Search become comfortable speaking aloud to a machine. Both will be particularly important as Google comes closer to releasing Glass—as my colleague Will Oremus points out, it appears that Glass will be controlled in large part by speech.

Watch a demonstration of the Peanut Gallery below.

Archer, Season 4

Jeremy Stahl — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 15:22:56 GMT

In Slate’s Archer TV Club, Jeremy Stahl will IM each week with a different fan of the FX spy comedy. This week he chats with Future Tense editor Torie Bosch.

Jeremy Stahl: Hola! Como estas? Mucho gracias para joining the chat today, Torie!

Torie Bosch: I'm going to have to use some Google Translate here, because like an idiot, I took Latin for almost 10 years. So: Gracias por tenerme.

Stahl: Ha! "Latin seems much more useful," he says outwardly sarcastically but is inwardly jealous of your declension skills. I thought that everything about this episode was muy bueno, but I especially loved Archer's condescending pidgin Spanish and his sweet interactions with Lupe.* Her shrug after blowing the border patrolman off the road with a semi-automatic was priceless. Also, did you catch the sign by that tiny shred of border fence that the patrol truck crashed into? ("More Border Fence Coming Soon!")

The episode's introductory ISIS debrief was also a fun way to get into the story. It starts with Cyril and Lana recounting to Malory how, while trying to capture Mexico's leading coyote (Spanish for coyote and also people smuggler), Archer beat them up and kidnapped a station wagon full of smuggled Mexican people because he wanted to vulgarly hit on the lead smuggler.

The rest of the episode is just Archer's misadventures in getting shot in the back by a couple of border guards, being operated on by an unlicensed veterinarian, and exploring his potential undiagnosed atypical autism.* You know, the usual Archer stuff. What did you think?

Bosch: I loved this episode. I just wish there had been some subtitles so I could appreciate Archer's bad Spanish, but I suppose not translating allowed those with a slightly better grasp of Spanish to enjoy the joke all the more. That brief look at Cyril, Archer, and Lana's conflicting opinions on illegal immigration was a real highlight for me as well.

Stahl: I admit to doing a lot of pausing and Google translating and Wikipedia searching this episode, and I'm starting to wonder if this is not the right way to watch Archer.

For example, did you know the difference between a loanword and a calque? Or what Giardia is? Or who starred in the Defiant Ones?

Bosch: You're more dedicated than I am with all that Wiki searching. Lazily, I just let the missed laughs go right past me.

Stahl: Either that or I have whatever Archer has. Which reminds me, did you know that some of the characteristics of pervasive developmental disorder, otherwise known as atypical "autismo," are "difficulty with changes in routines or environments," "unusual play with toys and other objects," and "difficulty with social behavior." Doesn't seem like a bad description of Sterling Archer.

Bosch: It's true! Funny enough, Malory could easily be described as one of the "refrigerator mothers" long (erroneously) believed to cause their children to develop autism.

By the way, I knew the difference between a loanword and a calque and the Defiant Ones, but not what was going on in the car with Giardia. Dare I ask?

Stahl: Giardia is what I assume is an obscure intestinal disorder, which Archer believed to be causing excess gas and all other sorts of unpleasantness in that car—though my guess is it was the Doritos.

Bosch: Oh, delightful.

Stahl: I guess the point is that instead of Adam Reed just making a cheap joke about somebody having gas in a car, he makes a better joke about Archer making a cheap joke about somebody having an obscure intestinal disorder in a car.

Bosch: Archer truly is the thinking man's dick-and-fart show.

Stahl: Ha! You kid, but I think that's an excellent characterization.

Bosch: I'm sincere, actually—my fondness for Archer surprised me because I am, frankly, a bit prudish and uptight. Vulgarity doesn't usually make me laugh. But the erudite way Archer approaches it makes me love the show all the more.

Stahl: Indeed! No less a bastion of American high culture as Harpers ran a full-length essay on the show’s intellectual merits in this month's issue. I think the money line in Charles Bock's essay is this: "The visual tone of the show, like its deadpan, involute gags, is adult in the sense of 'grown-up,' as opposed to simply 'not for kiddies.' "

Bosch: Well stated, Charles Bock.

Stahl: I think there is still a lot of infantile humor at the heart of the show (see every oral sex joke in this episode), but most of it is done in such a way—couched in satire of culture high and low—that makes it "grown up."

Anyway, mucho gracias again for chatting with me, Kimmy Kevlar!

Bosch: Thanks for letting me crash, amigo!

Correction, March 8, 2013: This post originally stated that Sterling Archer was operated on by an unlicensed dentist. He was operated on by an unlicensed veterinarian. This post also misspelled pidgin Spanish.

Is It Time To Take Cyborg Rights Seriously? A Q&A With Neil Harbisson.

Torie Bosch — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:17:44 GMT

This article arises from Future Tense, a partnership of Slate, the New America Foundation, and Arizona State University. On Feb. 28-March 2, Future Tense will be taking part in Emerge, an annual conference on ASU’s Tempe campus about what the future holds for humans. This year’s theme: the future of truth. Visit the Emerge website to learn more and to get your ticket.

At Emerge, Neil Harbisson will be discussing our cyborg future with Future Tense blogger Will Oremus and Frankenstein’s Cat author Emily Anthes. Harbisson was born without the ability to see color, but a device he calls his “eyeborg” allows him to now “hear” color. (He described this in a TED talk in 2012.) In an email interview below, which has been lightly edited, he talks about his life as a cyborg.

First, tell me a little about your “eyeborg.” What does it do for you?
Color is basically hue, saturation, and light. Right now, I can see light in shades of gray, but I can’t see its saturation or hue. The eyeborg detects the light’s hue, and converts it into a sound frequency that I can hear as a note. It also translates the saturation of the color into volume. So if it’s a vivid red, I will hear it more loudly.

How has being a cyborg changed your life?
It has changed the way I perceive the world. Color is everywhere, so everything has changed. I still can't see color, but I can perceive it. I can experience it in a way that allows me to be a part of this reality, which I was excluded from before. Thanks to the eyeborg, I’ve made a career by combining music and art. I do concerts where I plug myself into a set of speakers and play the colors of the audience back to them. And I also started to perceive sound as color. Telephone lines became green; Amy Winehouse’s “Rehab” song seemed red and pink. So I started to paint using the sounds around me. I’ve made pictures of pieces by Vivaldi, Beethoven, and Mozart among others. Now, we are developing a bag that you will be able to customize with your favorite song (using the same pattern I do with the artworks).

What does the word cyborg mean to you?
I believe that being a cyborg is a feeling, it's when you feel that a cybernetic device is no longer an external element but a part of your organism. One can start feeling cyborg by simply attaching an infrared sensor at the back of the head, a sensor that vibrates when someone gets close to you. If you wear the sensor attached to your body permanently, the brain will gradually accept the new feeling as an extra sense that can enhance your own perception of the surroundings.

You call yourself a “cyborg activist.” What challenges do cyborgs face that the rest of us might not be aware of?
There’s no legal protection for cyborgs. In 2010, I started the Cyborg Foundation to defend our rights. Cyborgs have been kicked out from several places because they are seen as a possible security threat. I've been kicked out from places such as Harrods, Casino Montecarlo, and many supermarkets. Most cinemas don’t let me in because they think I’m going to record the film. Some countries don't allow you to appear with any electronic equipment on passport photographs. In 2004 I was allowed to appear with the eyeborg in my passport photograph, which has made things a lot easier in airports.

Will we all be cyborgs in 100 years? Or will it remain a niche in society?
I believe that being a cyborg will be extremely normal in 100 years. I believe that one of the most common implants will be the ones that allow us to extend our perception via bone conduction. We could all easily have a bone-conducted ear to hear music or have telephone calls without blocking our ears. But the future goes beyond cyborgism. There will be the time when there will be no need to use cybernetics to extend our senses, perceptions, or abilities. Post-cyborgism will be dominated by a common use of genetic modification and the use of our own body as a resource of energy.

What policies and social changes need to be made to make room for cyborgs?
The policies and social changes are similar to the ones that transsexuals have been facing for decades. We need cyborg hospitals, specialized clinics dedicated to cybernetic implants, where doctors and computer scientists work together. Now, if I can't perceive a color I don't know whether to go to an optician, to an otolaryngologist, or to a computer scientist. The biggest challenge for cyborgs is to be socially accepted. Society needs to accept that there are people who wish to use technology as part of the body. We need to get used to seeing humans with antennas sticking out of their heads.

Chris Bosh, will.i.am Join Campaign To Teach All Kids To Code

Torie Bosch — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:46:25 GMT

It’s not surprising that Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates both show up in a new video from Code.org to convince kids to learn how to program. But a couple of the other talking-heads may throw you: Chris Bosh, who studied some programming during his year at Georgia Tech, and will.i.am, who is currently learning to code. The primary message of the PSA: “You don’t have to be a genius to code,” as one participant puts it, and it will help you land a cool job.

“I know it can be intimidating,” says Bosh, who also shares that he was made fun of in high school for being part of a computer group called the “Whiz Kids.” “But what isn’t?” he asks.

According to Code.org, only one in 10 schools teach coding. But maybe that will change: A couple of weeks ago, during a Google+ Hangout, President Obama responded positively to a suggestion that kids should be required to take programming.

Letter "To a Future Woman in Tech" Hopes for Long Ladies' Room Lines at Conferences

Torie Bosch — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 17:47:00 GMT

Stacey Mulcahy, who is currently a lead developer at the digital creative agency Big Spaceship, has been in the tech industry since 2001. So when her now 8-year-old niece, who is obsessed with “anything Mario Brothers,” called to say that she wants to design video games when she grows up, Mulcahy wasn’t surprised. She was, however, a little worried. “I lay awake, thinking about her future career choice, about how things are now, and how much I wish I could change them for her,” she writes. From that came “To a Future Woman in Tech,” which she posted this week.

In the open letter, Mulcahy writes, “I hope that being a female developer will cease to be a novelty. I hope that you attend conferences and find yourself complaining about long lines for the bathroom. … I hope that when you attend a meeting that is mostly male, that you never get asked why you are not taking meeting notes. I hope you say ‘fuck this’ more than ‘it's okay’.”

The advice and fears she shares, Mulcahy told me in an email, stem from her own experiences—like people assuming she’s “a project manager or designer.” But for all the bad, Mulcahy says that she wrote this in part to let “people know that things are changing” for the better, such as at her own workplace. She has had a lot of support from male colleagues in the industry. In the letter, she writes about the irritating phenomenon of adding “female” as a descriptor before a woman in tech’s job title. But, she told me, she’s received tweets from people suggesting that that isn’t as much of a problem any more.

The tech industry has come under fire for decades for sexism, and the problem continues—hence the “brogrammer” discussions of 2012 or the “booth babe” criticisms targeting the 2013 Consumer Electronics Show. (It would take a depressingly long time to list all of the recent dustups here.) But Mulcahy’s letter is noteworthy because while she wrote it out of concern, she also sees it as a message of hope, not condemnation.

Longer women’s bathroom lines at tech conferences would be a small price to pay for progress.

Read the full letter.

CNN Anchor to Bill Nye: Did Global Warming Cause the Asteroid That Will Soon Fly Past Earth?

Torie Bosch — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:14:00 GMT

On Friday, an asteroid will come within 17,000 miles of the Earth—“a very close shave” by space standards, as my colleague Phil Plait puts it on Bad Astronomy. Recently, Bill Nye the Science Guy went on CNN to discuss the phenomenon—and anchor Deb Feyerick opened with a rather odd question: “Is this an effect of perhaps global warming?”

Nye was decent enough to ignore the question altogether, after a little bit of rambling about how meteor and meteorology are etymologically related. You can sort of see how Feyerick might have made the mistake. The segment immediately preceding the bit on the asteroid was apparently devoted to climate change and extreme weather, and the awkward segue is a staple of TV news. But how often do we get to laugh about climate change and asteroids that just miss destroying the planet at the same time?

The State Department’s Advice for Avoiding Internet Scams Is Not Idiotic

Torie Bosch — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:48:00 GMT

Even the government is weighing in on the Manti Te’o story—sort of.

On Thursday, the USA.gov blog posted a list of State Department tips to protect yourself from Internet dating scams. Among the warning signs: “The scammer has incredibly bad luck” and asks for money; photos purported to be of the person show someone who is suspiciously good-looking. The advice is culled from a lengthier State Department article on Internet dating scams that includes, among other things, a sample transcript of an instant messaging conversation between a victim and a con artist.

On Gawker, Neetzan Zimmerman pounced, calling the recommendations “asinine” because they wouldn’t have come in handy in Manti Te’o’s case (assuming that Te’o was a victim, not a perpetrator). For one thing, Zimmerman says, Te’o didn’t give money to “Lennay Kekua.” On Gawker’s sister site Jezebel, Katie Halper echoed Zimmerman’s disdain, asking, “This is a little ridiculous, right? I mean, this is the State Department we're talking about here. Don't they have more important things to do with their time?”

But those critiques are unfair. While the State Department surely has plenty on its plate, putting together such a list probably didn’t exactly deplete its resources enough to cause deficiencies elsewhere. Furthermore, the purpose of the USA.gov blog post isn’t to somehow go back in time and save poor little Te’o, nor to scold him retroactively. It was published to take advantage of the news cycle, to capture a little of the overwhelming attention currently being paid to “catfishing” and other dating scams. The U.S. government warns people about all kinds of swindles—like appeals for help that seem to come from a friend or relative stranded in another country, fake international lotteries, shady online shopping outfits, cons involving the diversity visa program, and more. And there is good reason for warnings about fake Internet love: In 2011, an American man (who happened to be a former write-in candidate in the 2010 Arizona governor’s race) ended up penniless in Ukraine after flying there to meet his fake online love. Some people lose thousands of dollars to overseas Internet hustlers (and domestic ones, of course). In a particularly brutal case, an American man was allegedly drugged, robbed, and murdered by the Brazilian “fiancee” he met online and her real boyfriend.

Maybe the tips wouldn’t have helped the American stuck in Ukraine or the one killed in Brazil. Maybe the advice is essentially common sense. But when it comes to love—especially online—common sense can evaporate pretty quickly. It would be nice to think that everyone approached by an online scammer would notice the warning signs himself, but overestimating the public’s rationality is never a good idea.

Tsk, Tsk: Report Says Congressional Computers Downloaded Pirated TV Shows, Movies

Torie Bosch — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 23:02:18 GMT

You would be hard-pressed to find a member of Congress who would say publicly that it’s OK to illegally download TV shows and movies. But a report suggests that congressional computers have been used to torrent films like The Cabin in the Woods, The Queen of Versailles, and Bad Santa as well as episodes of 30 Rock, Dexter, and an Australian soap opera called Home and Away.

ScanEye, which tracks torrent activity like illegal downloads, recently shared its findings with U.S. News and World Report’s Whispers blog. The 10-page document lists 56 torrents downloaded in October and November, along with IP addresses that Whispers says are assigned to congressional offices. “The report does not include IP addresses associated with every congressional office, so the number of illegal downloads may be higher,” Elizabeth Flock wrote on Whispers.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that members of Congress are themselves downloading CSI: NY for some lunchtime viewing—it’s their staffers, in all likelihood. Still, as the Guardian puts it, “The report demonstrates that even though Congress has found itself at the forefront of measures to stop piracy, including the much-maligned Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa), its staff do not always follow the legislators' lead.” If you can’t keep your own networks clean, how can you expect to police the rest of the Internet?

It’s not even the first time that this has happened: In 2011, as Whispers points out, TorrentFreak reported that congressional offices were downloading pirated content, even as lawmakers were writing SOPA.

Perhaps they were just doing research?

Are Lasers the Future of War? A Future Tense Event Recap.

Torie Bosch — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 19:53:27 GMT

Funny thing about being hit with the military’s Active Denial System, which uses directed energy—aka lasers—to keep people from venturing where they ought not. According to Spencer Ackerman, a Wired blogger who experienced the Active Denial System firsthand in March 2012, “It hurts so much.”

Ackerman shared his pain on Tuesday night at a Future Tense happy hour on directed energy’s potential military applications and the questions the technology raises. He spoke with Werner Dahm, former chief scientist of the U.S. Air Force and currently the director of the Security and Defense Systems Initiative at Arizona State University, who has watched the development of directed energy firsthand. (Arizona State is a partner in Future Tense with Slate and the New America Foundation.) The problem with discussing directed energy, according to Dahm, is striking the balance “between excitement and education.” (It is truly difficult to resist sensationalism with this subject—we’re talking about ray guns here!) That’s why he seeks to “provide a balanced view of what we really can do, where we are in terms of developing these systems.”

While casual observers may think that all lasers are created equal, Dahm and Ackerman noted that there are many types, and the potential applications vary. In addition to the Active Denial System, they addressed the potential for directed energy weapons to block surface-to-air missiles, to destroy targets on the ground with “ultra-low collateral damage,” even to ruin an enemy’s electronics—kind of “the opposite of the neutron bomb,” as Dahm put it: It would leave people unharmed but cripple communications and infrastructure.

One important point that often goes unrecognized, says Dahm, is that technological development is not the only factor in deploying any new weapon. The “ConOps,” or concepts of operation, are just as important—the military needs to think about how they will use the technology. Sometimes, the development of the ConOps is slower than the creation of the technology—the ethics of a weapon and even its potential PR ramifications must be considered. The Active Denial System was briefly in Afghanistan, but it was never used. That’s because, Dahm explained, it would be too easy the Taliban to spread rumors about the weapon being used to sterilize Afghans.

What about using lasers to kill? That’s where most people’s minds go first when they hear about this technology. But Dahm said that it’s not in the immediate future. In recent wars, “there’s been a tremendous value placed on low collateral strikes,” and lasers certainly could technically allow for that one day. But he emphasized that they would also have to consider the psychological effects that that would have on witnesses. With current “kinetic strikes,” a person dies virtually instantly. That might be “ethically more acceptable” than a slower death—directed energy weapons could take several seconds to kill someone. Furthermore, bystanders might be “traumatized very significantly.” Upon being asked by an audience member what would actually happen physically, Dahm said that they aren’t quite sure, since for obvious reasons it hasn’t been tested on humans, but “it wouldn’t be pretty.” For these reasons and others, Dahm says, “The human targets are way down the list of really where this is interesting. I think from the Air Force perspective … airborne self-defense is by far the highest priority.”

When you hear Ackerman talk about how in 2011 the Navy used a 15-kilowatt laser to set a small ship on fire, it’s easy to see why this technology is a game-changer. But in the end, Dahm urged that we all put directed-energy weapons into perspective. “It’s easy to kind of think they’re the totally new paradigm, they’ll replace everything, and they’re not,” he said. “They’re one tool in the toolkit.”

Leading Environmental Activist’s Blunt Confession: I Was Completely Wrong To Oppose GMOs

Torie Bosch — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:27:28 GMT

If you fear genetically modified food, you may have Mark Lynas to thank. By his own reckoning, British environmentalist helped spur the anti-GMO movement in the mid-‘90s, arguing as recently at 2008 that big corporations’ selfish greed would threaten the health of both people and the Earth. Thanks to the efforts of Lynas and people like him, governments around the world—especially in Western Europe, Asia, and Africa—have hobbled GM research, and NGOs like Greenpeace have spurned donations of genetically modified foods.

But Lynas has changed his mind—and he’s not being quiet about it. On Thursday at the Oxford Farming Conference, Lynas delivered a blunt address: He got GMOs wrong. According to the version of his remarks posted online (as yet, there’s no video or transcript of the actual delivery), he opened with a bang:

I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.

As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.

So I guess you’ll be wondering—what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.

His honest assessment of his heretofore poor understanding of the issue continues for almost 5,000 words—and it’s a must-read for anyone who has ever hesitated over conventional produce. To vilify GMOs is to be as anti-science as climate-change deniers, he says. To feed a growing world population (with an exploding middle class demanding more and better-quality food), we must take advantage of all the technology available to us, including GMOs. To insist on “natural” agriculture and livestock is to doom people to starvation, and there’s no logical reason to prefer the old ways, either. Moreover, the reason why big companies dominate the industry is that anti-GMO activists and policymakers have made it too difficult for small startups to enter the field.

“In the history of #environmentalism, has there ever been a bigger mea culpa than that given here?” Discover blogger Keith Kloor tweeted. (Kloor recently called GMO foes “the climate skeptics of the left” in Slate.)

I can’t think of another environmentalist. But it does call to mind another turnabout. In 2002, medical writer Arthur Allen penned a New York Times Magazine story titled “The Not-So-Crackpot Autism Theory.” The piece suggested there might indeed be a link between autism and vaccination, and its publication in an outlet so mainstream as the New York Times gave the previously fringe theory more credibility. But soon after the article’s publication, more and more published research effectively confirmed that there is no link. Allen took that research seriously. A 2009 Times article about the book Autism’s False Prophets said of Allen: “He later changed his mind and now ‘feels bad’ about the [magazine] article, he said, ‘because it helped get these people into the field who did a lot of damage.’ ”

He began writing extensively about the dangers of anti-vaccine activism—including Slate pieces arguing that thimerosal is safe, criticizing Oprah for promoting the dingbat Jenny McCarthy, and decrying dangerous autism “treatments” purported to reverse “vaccine damage” that never really happened. He wrote a book, Vaccine: The Controversial Story of Medicine’s Greatest Lifesaver, that examined the fears and misconceptions surrounding vaccination.

To admit that you got something wrong—whether for almost two decades, like Lynas did, or in a single but influential article, like Allen did—is terrifying. It is also the mark of intellectual rigor.

Lynas concludes that people who want to stick with organic are entitled to—but they should not stand in the way of others who would use science to find more efficient ways to feed billions. “[T]he GM debate is over. It is finished. We no longer need to discuss whether or not it is safe. … You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM food,” he says.

Now the question is, will his former anti-GMO fellows heed his urge to review the science—or will they call him a turncoat shill for Monsanto?

The Six Best Sci-Fi Shorts of 2012: Dystopias and Robots With Heart

Torie Bosch — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:07:00 GMT

2012’s sci-fi cinema was a bit of a mixed bag: We had the widely appealing Hunger Games and the clever Looper, but also the dud John Carter.

Online, however, a number of sci-fi shorts with impressive production values raised important questions about augmented reality, constant surveillance, space exploration, robots with heart, and other technology topics that raise tricky questions for society and policymakers. Below, find the top six narrative sci-fi videos from 2012. Many are proof-of-concepts from special effects shops, so there are some dazzling visuals to behold. Celebrate the new year with stories that will make you dread the future—in a good way.

“Archetype”
Special-effects maestro Aaron Sims wanted to make a movie about robots. To pique Hollywood’s interest, he first created this short, in which a newly “born” robot appears to have real human memories. The project paid off: After the video went viral, producer John Davis acquired the rights to “Archetype.”

Issues explored: Human-robot interaction, creating a mind

Run time: 7:02

“Tempo”

The tempo device can make an object accelerate or decelerate with the push of a button—and it would make a mighty fine weapon. So of course the bad guys want to take it from the genial scientists.

While most of the other shorts here have a video game feel and are light on conversation, “Tempo” has a dash of dark humor and smart dialogue. But there’s still plenty of guns.

Issues explored: Military technology, ethics of technological innovation

Run time: 13:52

“Sight”
Augmented-reality contacts make life more fun—and not a little creepy—in this short created by Israeli students Daniel Lazo and Eran May-raz.

Issues explored: Augmented reality, online dating, gamification, technology etiquette, online advertising

Run time: 7:50

“Memorize”
In this Minority Report-inspired shoot-‘em-up short (with a sprinkle of Judge Dredd), the government requires all Americans to be implanted with a device that not only identifies them, but records everything they do and see. Note that despite this remarkable advance in technology, the protagonist still drives his own car.

Issues explored: augmented reality, crime fighting, civil rights, spam bots (real ones—a robot with an Eastern European machine accent advertises “Happy Pillz”), embedded identification chips

Run time: 7:12

“Seed”
Set in 2071, this quiet and moody 13-minute film shows a lonely explorer conducting reconnaissance on Gaia, a rocky, moon-esque planet slated for possible colonization. Then something goes wrong.

Issues explored: Space colonization

Run time: 13:40

“Gamma”
After a “nuclear decade” of war left cities around the world too irradiated for human life (except for the stalwarts who refused to evacuate), a company called Gamma creates a method to cleanse urban zones. In Eastern Europe, they deploy “nuke roots”—hybrids of fungi and mollusks—to scarf up the radiation. Once they’ve done their duty, the “nuke roots” are supposed to be buried safely so humans can return. But something goes wrong. (Doesn’t it always?)

Issues explored: Nuclear war, corporate mistrust, premature deployment of untested technologies

Run time: 6:47

2012: The Year in TV Moments

Torie Bosch — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:15:00 GMT

PBS, November 13, 10:30 p.m.

In November, PBS’s documentary series Frontline examined the murky legalities of assisted suicide. The entire episode is gripping: We watch an elderly woman with cancer who has decided to end her life go through the process with an organization called Compassion & Choices. We hear from people who were charged with crimes for helping loved ones commit suicide (or even just knowing about it beforehand). But the most compelling moment doesn’t involve anyone who is actually terminally ill.

Much of “The Suicide Plan” focuses on the Final Exit Network, whose leadership believes that everyone, not just those who are already dying, should be able to choose when to end his or her life. The group’s preferred method is helium, the kind you buy in tanks at party-goods stores. Final Exit Network volunteer “guides” will visit the home of the dearly departing, show them how to administer the helium, and then clean up the scene, preferably without leaving any sign of their involvement. But when two families learned separately that their loved ones’ allegedly natural deaths—a man in Georgia and a woman in Arizona—were suicides carried out with network guides present, a multistate investigation ensued.

In February 2009, as part of the investigation, a Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent posed as a man with pancreatic cancer who was ready to shuffle off his mortal coil. Final Exit then-president Ted Goodwin came to the man’s home and, as you can see in video of the sting that aired on Frontline, told him what to expect. “You’re going to have that hood on, and you’re going to be looking at me, probably. And you’re going to be breathing. It feels and smells just like air.” The two then headed to the man’s bedroom to make use of the helium tanks. After the agent lied down on the bed, he asked Goodwin to make sure that his hands don’t rip off the hood once the process starts. Other Final Exit Network guides acknowledged holding an individual’s hands at the time of death, purportedly to give them a final human touch. But here, Goodwin was promising to physically help the suicide. As soon as Goodwin touched the agent, he was arrested. In a later interview, he explained, “I think that there is a sacred moral issue here, OK, to protect them from a botched suicide.” (Goodwin was eventually acquitted.)

What is remarkable about the video is just how casual, how mundane, the process seems. Even though I happen to agree that in some cases people should have the right to choose to end their suffering, Goodwin gave me the willies. Shouldn’t death with dignity also involve a little more ceremony or solemnity or something that feels more special than a discussion about a root canal? (The method of death doesn’t help, either—as a district attorney told Frontline, “If you want to talk about death with dignity, I don’t think that it’s going to involve helium tanks that are purchased from Party City. It’s creepy. It’s disturbing.”) The scene was troubling, thought-provoking, and will stay with me for some time.

Senate Approves Legislation To Loosen Video Privacy Laws So You Can Sneer at Your Friends’ Netflix Picks

Torie Bosch — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 21:18:00 GMT

On Thursday, just one day after Judge Robert Bork died, the Senate voted in favor of relaxing legislation passed in the wake of his intense confirmation hearings. Assuming the president signs the amended version of the Video Privacy Protection Act, which was approved by the House earlier this week, it will soon be easier for Netflix and other online video purveyors to connect to your social media profiles.

For years, Netflix had a feature that allowed you to peek at the queues of friends. (It was called, of course, “Friends.”) As Sam Kean discussed in Slate in 2006, this was problematic: It alerted you to the terrible taste of those you previously respected. Some of his friends, he wrote, “had given perfect ratings to productions as various as Deliverance, Pretty in Pink, Edward Scissorhands, Madonna: Truth or Dare, and Xena: Warrior Princess (Season 3). Who were these people, I wondered, and what kinds of unholy amalgamations were their movie tastes?” In part because people don’t really enjoy being judged, one assumes, less than 2 percent of subscribers were using Friends when Netflix killed it in 2010.

But Netflix never gave up on the idea of subscribers peeking at one another’s picks. The company has long wanted to take advantage of “frictionless sharing,” in which your activity on one site is automatically posted on, say, your Facebook wall. Frictionless sharing already used widely by news organizations (like the Washington Post’s Social Reader) and other sites. Though plenty of people (including Farhad Manjoo) hate it, Netflix has been keen to get in on the action—but federal law has kept the site a mercifully frictionless-sharing-free zone.

That’s because during Bork’s failed confirmation, a Washington City Paper reporter named Michael Dolan talked a video rental store clerk into giving him the jurist’s account records. There was nothing particularly interesting there: As Dolan recalled in the New Republic yesterday, “Bork enjoyed whodunits and Brit films, costume drama and otherwise; he and his hadn't rented anything remotely salacious enough to rankle patron Reagan's buds in the Moral Majority.” But legislators were horrified (presumably, more-rankling titles lurked in their own rental histories), so in 1988 they passed the Video Privacy Protection Act to prevent anyone from disclosing what titles you had checked out.

Though Hulu has argued that the VPAA does not apply to online video, Netflix took a more cautious approach and lobbied for the law to be updated. With the Senate vote, Netflix comes much closer to implementing frictionless sharing, as it has already done for subscribers outside of the United States.

Netflix says that updating the VPAA will give “consumers more freedom to share with friends when they want.” But as soon as it launches, I know I’ll use the tightest security options available. Because I want the freedom to watch a bad movie without my friends knowing it.

Watch DARPA’s Robot Pack Mule Respond to Vocal Commands, Stomp Through the Forest

Torie Bosch — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:50:04 GMT

The AlphaDog is growing up so fast!

OK, the robotic “pack mule” from DARPA and Boston Dynamics is still approximately the same size. But its capabilities have improved markedly since we introduced you to a prototype in October 2011. Then, the machine—intended to carry up to 400 pounds over rough terrain, while also serving as a power source for troops—was stuck on an inside track, connected to heavy cables. In this latest video from DARPA, filmed recently in central Virginia, it marches through the forest, responds to about 10 verbal commands, and follows its leader closely. Rough terrain like ditches isn’t a problem for the hearty man-made beast, and when it rolls down a hill, it recovers smoothly. On flat land, its trot is impressive, too.

It isn’t exactly ready for stealthy missions: The whirrs and whines sound like a blender. But at this rate, AlphaDog—or, as it's also known, the Legged Squad Support System—will be stalking the woods silently before you know it.

Via the Verge.

It’s Not the End of the World as We Know It. But Admit It—You’re a Tiny Bit Worried.

Torie Bosch — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 21:04:36 GMT

There is no chance the world will end on Dec. 21. As my Slate colleague Phil Plait has written persuasively on “Bad Astronomy,” notions that the Earth’s poles will reverse, or a heretofore undiscovered planet will collide with ours, or solar flares will wreak havoc are “nonsense, garbage, taurine feces, flim flam, and pifflery.” The Maya never said that there would be an apocalypse on that particular date—and even if they did, there’d be no reason to believe them. We will all live to see another day (except, of course, for those of us who would have died anyway), so don’t put off your Christmas shopping or your credit card payments.

According to a Reuters poll conducted in May, about 10 percent of people worldwide think that Dec. 21 could be doomsday. (To be fair, some apocalypse believers don’t think the world will necessarily end. They argue that we could face some sort of age of enlightenment or other major event—fuzzy predictions to save face when Dec. 22 dawns uneventfully.) If you aren’t part of the 10 percent, the Mayan apocalypse talk is quite entertaining: People are making fun of the Chicken Littles, finding ways to profit, and enjoying apocalypse theme parties—virgin sacrifice optional.

But though Plait, NASA, other experts, and plain old common sense have me solidly convinced that there is no reason to believe the Dec. 21 hype, there’s a tiny, primitive part of me that has a twinge of fear. It’s illogical. It’s barely present. The skeptical, logical part of me disdains it. But it persists. Why?

According to Shmuel Lissek, an assistant professor of clinical psychology at the University of Minnesota who studies the psychophysiology and neurobiology of fear, evolution is to blame. In humanity’s early days, he says, “fear protected us from survival threats, and in our evolutionary history, the cost of missing a threat is much more expensive than the cost of a false alarm. … Essentially we’ve been naturally selected to be rather safe than sorry.” In cases like this, we’re torn between the primitive parts of our brain, which react quickly to any potential danger we see or hear about, and the evolved, which process the words, sounds, or images from a logical standpoint. If you know intellectually that Planet X isn’t going to slam into Earth on Dec. 21, but your heart rate elevates ever so slightly at the thought, you’re experiencing this conflict. The Mayan apocalypse may not be a stick in the forest that looks like a snake at first glance. In both cases, though, it’s better to be on alert, just in case.

That makes sense. But maybe there’s another explanation. I think it’s a bit like watching a horror movie—you know the action isn’t real, but you still experience some apprehension in a pleasurable, entertaining way. Though it won’t come to fruition, the thought of life ending or changing drastically adds a little suspense and excitement to the everyday. It’s something else to talk about and to distract us from more realistic but less extraordinary fears. You can envision these days as the first act in a post-apocalyptic movie. (Of course, if this were a film, my cavalier attitude would doom me to a gory death within five minutes of the cataclysmic event.)

But there are people for whom Dec. 21 is genuinely scary, not funhouse-scary, and I don’t want to diminish the anguish this has caused them. NASA’s David Morrison, an astrophysicist, has said that he’s received emails from people driven to suicidal thoughts by the prospect of the Mayan apocalypse. For their sake, it’s a relief that the end of fear of the end is nigh.

FTC Is Investigating “Data Brokers.” How Much Do These Companies Know About You?

Torie Bosch — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:01:13 GMT

On Tuesday, the FTC announced its plan to turn the tables on “data brokers”—companies that collect information on consumers (like you!) and then sell it to others. Under the FTC’s orders, nine of these data brokers must provide information about how they work, what kind of information they collect, whether consumers are able to review or access data about themselves, and more.

The problem, says Justin Brookman, the director of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Project on Consumer Privacy, is a notable absence of transparency. As of now, consumers have no way of knowing what information has been collected about them or how. There’s also no way for you to verify that the data about you is correct or to request that private details be removed.

As the FTC notes in a press release, data brokers aren’t entirely sinister: “In many ways, these data flows benefit consumers and the economy; for example, having this information about consumers enables companies to prevent fraud. Data brokers also provide data to enable their customers to better market their products and services.” But their wares can be used in other ways. For instance, the Fair Credit Reporting Act lays out ground rules for how employers can use information on things like bankruptcy in evaluating potential employees. But data brokers may attempt to skirt the law by stating in disclaimers that the information they are selling isn’t governed by the FCRA.

This is the latest in a series of actions intended to bring more transparency to data brokers’ practices. In June, data brokerage firm Spokeo was fined $800,000 for improperly marketing consumer information profiles “to companies in the human resources, background screening, and recruiting industries without taking steps to protect consumers required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.” The next month, Reps. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., and Joe Barton, R-Texas, requested information from nine firms. (The FTC action involves some of the same companies that Markey and Barton addressed, but the lists aren’t identical.) In October, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.V., announced an investigation into data brokers’ practices, saying of American consumers, “An ever-increasing percentage of their lives will be available for download, and the digital footprint they will inevitably leave behind will become more specific and potentially damaging, if used improperly.”

What, exactly, is in that digital footprint? It’s hard to say precisely, given how many companies there are and the lack of transparency. “I’m supposed to be a privacy expert,” Brookman told me, but even he isn’t sure where all the information is coming from. Publicly available records are one obvious source, so you can safely bet that some data broker out there knows your address, your date of birth, your arrest record. Then it gets a little more complicated. Your social media information could come into play. Thanks to brand loyalty cards, your profile with a data broker—which is often tied to your email address—might track your purchases. That may sound a little creepy but harmless, but as Brookman notes, it gets more uncomfortable when your health-related purchases from a pharmacy are also included in your record. The FTC said Spoke’s profiles, for one, could include “hobbies, ethnicity, religion, participation on social networking sites, and photos.”

Brookman says that realistically, there’s no way to create any sort of “opt out” from data brokers. What we can hope for instead is something the FTC envisions—a centralized database where you can see who knows what about you. Like that you love cat photos, buy hemorrhoid cream regularly, got a drunk and disorderly citation in college, and prefer organic produce.

IBM’s Predictions for the Next Five Years: Computers That Can Smell, Taste, Hear

Torie Bosch — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:31:21 GMT

Each December since 2006, IBM has released its “5 in 5”—five predictions for the next five years. This year’s batch is focused on re-creating our senses for computers: “Processing sights and sounds requires eyes, ears and, most important, a brain—right? But what if your hardware shared your senses?” asks the introduction.

IBM’s soothsayers foretell:

-       amped-up touch screens that actually allow you to feel the object depicted
-       enhanced computer vision to help doctors diagnose previously undetectable diseases. Less altruistically, this technology could also help businesses detect the images you share on social networks, so they can better tailor ads.
-       smart “hearing” that can analyze the subtle differences in sounds that can often be undetectable to our own ears —from a baby’s cry to a tree groaning under the weight of high winds."
-       “digital taste buds” that will allow high-tech chefs to create new, delicious meals even for those with dietary restrictions.
-       smart computer “noses” that can sniff breath samples to diagnose the flu, diabetes, TB, and more.

But will all of these predictions really come to fruition by 2018? Let’s take a look at IBM’s 2006 and 2007 “5 in 5” lists.

In 2006, IBM anticipated remote health care access from anywhere in the world, mind-reading cellphones, “real-time speech translation,” a 3-D Internet, and nanotechnology for environmental purposes. In 2007, “5 in 5” foretold money-saving, accessible green technologies; technology to detect whether your food is what it says on the box; cell phones as wallets, banks, shopping companions, and more; completely new ways of driving; and doctors using “super senses” to diagnose patients’ ailments.

We certainly do not have dependable real-time speech translation yet, as Konstantin Kakaes explained in Future Tense earlier this year. Furthermore, the 2007 prediction about “super senses” as diagnostic tools hews rather closely to this year’s sensory-themed set. The cellphone prediction from the same year, promising that we could carry our banks and more in our pockets, was rather spot-on—but, as GigaOm pointed out in 2011, that forecast came on the heels of the iPhone launch. Sure, there are 3-D worlds online, but most of our Internet remains two-dimensional. In a look back at the 2006 set of predictions, blogger Brian Jackson pointed out that that was the height of the Second Life craze. At the moment a true 3-D Internet doesn’t even seem that appealing—we can’t even agree on whether we enjoy it in the movies. And while remote health care access is possible, it’s not yet even close to being widespread.

For the most part, these predictions are vague enough that IBM can point to individual examples that the technologies are maturing. In assessing its predictions about new ways of driving, for instance, the company points out that each Chevy Volt has its own IP address, for instance. But for the most part, driving in 2012 looks an awful lot like driving in 2006. In that way, the “5 in 5” demonstrates William Gibson’s famous proclamation that “the future is already here—it’s just not evenly distributed.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Franken’s Anti-“Stalking Apps” Bill. But It Still Won’t Pass This Year.

Torie Bosch — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 23:26:23 GMT

On Thursday, Sen. Al Franken’s Location Privacy Protection Act was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Franken’s legislation seeks to combat technology-enabled stalking by requiring that an individual give express consent before geographic data gleaned from devices like cellphones is shared with another person (though it would still be OK for parents to monitor their children’s whereabouts). Apps that are intended to help stalk would be banned.

Furthermore, it would mandate that companies get authorization before collecting or sharing customers’ location data. Burying disclosures in the terms of service, privacy policies, and end-user agreements that none of us actually read wouldn’t suffice.

In his remarks to the committee, Franken told the story of a Minnesota woman who went to obtain an order of protection from a stalker. Soon after she got there, she received a text from him, asking why she was in that building and whether she was trying to get a restraining order. Apparently, he had been using an app to track her. In 2006, Franken noted, Department of Justice statistics said that more than 25,000 women in the United States are stalked via GPS. That number, he believse, has surely increased with the widespread adoption of smartphones.

“Our law is not protecting location information, and our law is not protecting it the way it should.,” he said. “Our law does not clearly require a company to get your consent before getting your location information from your mobile device. Our law allows a company to legally give or sell that information to any third party other than the government. And even though current law prohibits an abuser from stalking his victim—it does not clearly prohibit a company developing and deploying stalking apps explicitly designed and intended to help abusers stalk their victims.”

When you put it that way, his legislation sounds eminently reasonable, doesn’t it? But industry, not surprisingly, would rather self-regulate. According to the Hill, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, voted in favor of the bill but is concerned that the legislation could stifle innovation. And at a hearing last year, MinnPost noted, the Association for Competitive Technology’s president complained that this sort of legislation would be particularly damaging to small-time developers.

Even Franken has admitted that the bill has approximately no chance of passing the Senate before this Congress wraps. After all, our legislators are a little tied up with the fiscal cliff discussions. Still, this is a step forward: Franken first introduced the bill in 2011, but it never made it out of committee.

And even small movements can be monitored and recorded.

Women Get a Shot at Not Shaving for Cancer

Torie Bosch — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 22:20:20 GMT

So we’ve made it through Movember, that silly month in which men on your Facebook wall grow out their mustaches “for cancer.” (Because one cannot simply donate to groups like the American Cancer Society—a stunt must be involved.) Now it’s the ladies’ turn. In the video below (via Laughing Squid), a group of women declare their intention to leave their pubic hair alone this month. For cancer. It’s Decembeaver.

Recognize the woman with the dark curly hair? (On her head, perv.) That’s Irene McGee, whom you may remember from her 1999 turn on The Real World: Seattle.

One YouTube commenter says, “Ok, I found this pretty damn funny. Though I can't work out what side of the argument you're on.” I agree—and that fuzziness makes it enjoyable. By including a link to the American Cancer Society’s website in the YouTube description, the video’s creators are sort of encouraging charitable giving. But they’re also skewering the rather narcissist Movember approach. Though that campaign has raised millions of dollars, it does so in a self-proclaiming, patting-yourself-on-the-back kind of way.

Anyway, there’s no way Decembeaver will take off. Mustaches are quirky and fun—women’s pubic hair is just gross.

Who Should Govern the Internet? A Future Tense Event Recap.

Torie Bosch — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:12:14 GMT

You may have heard that at a summit next week, the International Telecommunications Union, a U.N. agency, will attempt to wrest control of the Internet. At a Future Tense event on Internet governance this morning, held at the New America Foundation in Washington, the rumor was soundly spanked by a host of experts. In reality, they said, the upcoming World Conference on International Communications in Dubai will likely just lead to … more conversation.

But maybe there’s a silver lining to all of this bipartisan fear-mongering (or, as Open Technology Institute Director Sascha Meinrath termed it, “the uber-geek [equivalent of] Red Dawn”): “Suddenly everybody’s interested in global governance of the Internet,” said Syracuse University professor Milton Mueller. “If it was necessary to lie to people and tell them the ITU was going to take over the Internet, maybe it’s a good thing.” Indeed, Temple University law professor David Post, author of the amazingly titled book In Search of Jefferson's Moose: Notes on the State of Cyberspace, observed that right now, it feels a bit like six months before the SOPA protests blew up: We are on the verge of Internet governance issues crossing over into mainstream discussion.

But if the U.N. isn’t going to “take over” the Internet, does that mean the Internet can just keep humming along the way it has been? Not quite. Right now, we are stuck between an “old governance structure and a new one,” American University’s Derrick Cogburn argued. We might not quite know yet the form the new one should take, but there are a lot of reasons to jettison the old.

For one thing, the ITU can serve as a way for authoritarian regimes’ strict Internet controls to gain international legitimacy. Jim Cicconi, who is senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs at AT&T, put it this way: “The danger is not that the ITU takes over. That’s not what AT&T’s worried about. What we are worried about is it provides a legal underpinning for nation states being much more oppressive, much more controlling about the Internet. Even authoritarian governments look for international legitimacy for their oppressive actions,” he said. (Of course, as Mueller pointed out, we Americans can’t forget about surveillance on our own turf.) In fact, as word came that the Internet had been shut down in Syria, Andrew McLaughlin, who has worked for Tumblr and Google and served as deputy chief technology officer for the U.S. in 2009-2011, noted that the ITU constitution actually does not prohibit such actions.

Furthermore, the ITU and other organizations often fail to represent the actual people who use the Internet on a daily basis. Mueller noted that it is tied to governments, which can’t be trusted to always have in mind the best interests of the citizens they are supposed to represent. (As New America fellow Rebecca MacKinnon pointed out later, the discussion surrounding this issue can be problematic, too: It’s not good enough for the United States to say that Brazilian government doesn’t represent Brazilian Internet users. Brazilians need to be able to do that themselves.) And it’s not just about nation-states: According to Arizona State University’s Jonathan Koppell, author of the book World Rule, the ITU is heavily influenced by corporations, whose representatives are frequently found on the ITU’s “study groups” devoted to researching particular Internet-governance topics.

A frequent critique of Internet governance today is that the United States wields too much influence and that developing countries are left out of the conversation. Sometimes, that can be literal: Cogburn and others noted that it is “really, really expensive” to travel to Baku, Azerbaijan, and other far-flung places that host Internet governance conferences. But “the Internet must work globally, not just in the U.S.,” he said.

So if that’s what’s wrong with the system today, where should we look next? McLaughlin believes that the United States should make dismantling (or, as he put it more colorfully at one point, “kneecapping”) the ITU an official policy objective. He believes that there are a small number of things the ITU can and should do—but it certainly should not be given more power.

Ellery Biddle of the Center for Democracy and Technology believes that we shouldn’t abandon the idea of global policymaking around Internet issues altogether. “Technical standards are essential,” she said. But when it comes to more human issues, like surveillance, even voluntary standards can be tricky. Instead, she would prefer that we look to established documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Early in the day, Future Tense program co-director Joel Garreau asked our speakers not to depend too much on acronyms and abbreviations—but the alphabet soup flowed anyway. At least, though, that allowed Mueller to make a pun that will serve you well during the Internet governance discussion over the next week: “No rest for the WCIT.”

Watch the full event here. Future Tense is a partnership of Arizona State University, the New America Foundation, and Slate that looks at emerging technologies and their implications for society and policy. For more on the future of Internet governance, read:

“You Got a Better Idea? ICANN is the worst solution to Internet governance, except for all the alternatives,” by Jonathan Koppell.

“ICANN, Make a Difference: The $100 million raised by the sale of new Web domains should be used to wire Africa,” by Sascha Meinrath and Elliot Noss.

“The Real Threat to Internet Freedom Isn’t the United Nations: Governments are cooperating on surveillance in other, less obvious ways,” by Ryan Gallagher.

Homeland, Season 2

June Thomas — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 03:56:25 GMT

In Slate’s Homeland TV Club, June Thomas will IM each week with a different partner—policy experts, intelligence researchers, critics, and even Slate commenters. This week she chats with Slate’s “Future Tense” editor, Torie Bosch.

June Thomas: Torie, having seen how tough and forthright Philadelphia police officer Julia Diaz is, I'm extra-happy to be discussing this episode with a Philly native.

Torie Bosch: I was absurdly pleased that Homeland followed me from D.C. to Philadelphia this weekend, as I've been visiting family for the holiday.

Thomas: I often start these dialogues by saying, "I don't know where to begin," and that's usually because there were two big themes in play. This week, we had at least five huge events, each of which would've given a typical show about three weeks’ worth of material. In an episode full of revelations, which seemed like the biggest to you?

Bosch: That’s a challenge because, as you say, there were so many developments—some loud, like the thwarted bombing, some more subdued. The most interesting part for me, though, may have been the way Brody seems to have been officially replaced in his family, with a helpful nudge from Carrie.

Thomas: Yes! In an episode full of characters wearing "two hats," juggling secret identities, and dividing their loyalties between those masters who can be acknowledged and others who can't, I also felt that Mike's usurpation of Brody, both in Jess' bed and as a reliable father figure for Dana and Chris, was in some ways the most compelling. (Also, the most convincing.) I was struck, too, by how much I had forgotten about Mike's own particular flavor of PTSD. As he told Dana, "We all come back with some kind of wound." He served alongside Brody, and when he came back—with no partner to meet him at the reunion ceremony—he was tortured by feelings of guilt at leaving his best friend behind. Talk about a guy I want to be rewarded for his good faith and service.

Bosch: I particularly enjoyed when Dana raged—not incorrectly—that everything going wrong in their lives stemmed from her "fucking dad," and Mike whipped out that favorite of parents everywhere: "You don't talk to me like that." Meanwhile, she won't talk at all to Brody when he’s on the phone with the family at Fort Glass Windows. It was a nice twist from the end of last season, when her phone call dissuaded him from carrying out his own attack. Now, when he's close to doing the right thing by his family, she has lost patience.

The revelations about Quinn's true role within the team, however, came a pretty close second.

Thomas: Yes! I also enjoyed seeing all the hot-shot field agents getting to show their true feelings about the folks who process the intel they gather. Saul—and even Virgil—did for "an analyst?" what Lady Bracknell did for "a handbag?"

Bosch: The dismissal of the analysts as softies who don't live their nomadic lifestyle made me laugh, too—there was so much in those scenes. What did you think of the fact that Quinn's only book was Great Expectations?

Thomas: Ah, yes, the Dickensian aspect. It made me wish that if showrunners are going to leave heavy-handed literary clues, they'd please use short books that critics could read/re-read before commenting! I could say that Pip's connection with criminal Abel Magwitch in Great Expectations parallels Brody's with Abu Nazir, and that Dickens’ novel is also full of mistaken identities, but perhaps it's the storytelling technique. Great Expectations is told in the first person, and I was fascinated by the way this episode filled in Brody’s 12 hours with Abu Nazir. It was the cinematic equivalent of reported speech—as Brody explained to Carrie how he’d spent his time with Public Enemy No. 1, we were shown the two men’s interaction. At first I wasn’t sure if Brody’s version was the truth, though. Procedurals often show a murderer’s-eye-view of events and then later offer an alternate, accurate, version, once all the evidence is in. Were those images of Brody’s and Nazir’s time together an attempt at deception on Brody's part? But then we saw that Brody held something back from the CIA—that he had prayed with Abu Nazir. That—and later the fact that he narrowly escaped death (again!) at the end of the episode, and almost seemed like a lamb among lions—made me think that at this point we're supposed to feel sympathy for Brody. That's quite a transformation, eh?

Bosch: I wondered, too, about whether Brody was being completely forthright about his time with Nazir—and if he was, whether that means he has entirely rejected his terrorist hat, even his Muslim one. Before this episode, when was the last time we saw him pray?

I almost wonder whether the transformation is too neat, that we're in store for another twist, just as it seemed for quite some time last season that Brody was not the "turned" American prisoner.

Thomas: Let's talk about casting. Hiring F. Murray Abraham to play Dar Adul was fabulous, because he’s such an amazing actor, but also a bit of a surprise-killer. As soon as I saw his name in the opening credits, I knew the action was taking us in his direction—you don’t cast an Oscar winner as a diner waiter. But you’ve got to love a show that trickles out an amazing coup like that—giving him an episode where all we see of him is through a bus window. Do you have any idea how this plot line will play out?

Bosch: The mechanics of that bus powwow were amazing, weren't they? If I recall it correctly, Quinn realized his cover was blown, and then he was able to make two buses, and meet Dar Adul on the second one, all in less than 30 minutes. Having spent a significant portion of the last few years cursing the utter unreliability of D.C.-area public transportation, that logistical magic trick blew my mind more than Quinn's near assassination of Brody. This bit of throat-clearing is my way of saying: I have close to no idea what will happen with Dar Adul. But I do wonder about the kill order. The CIA assassinating a sitting congressman with secret ties to terrorism? It would take only a whiff of that to make the Petraeus scandal seem like a minor hiccup. You've mentioned before the near invisibility of the media, outside of Roya's presence. Maybe, just maybe, there's a setup here for something going awry and leaking to the press? That would make for a good Season 3 story line, if we're looking ahead.

Thomas: The actress who played Officer Diaz, Quinn’s babymama, was also amazing, in that case partly because she was unknown, at least to me. The way she stood up to Saul’s questioning—“I’m a cop, sir, not a moron”—was all the more impressive because it came from a role that might typically be a throwaway, the equivalent of someone who gives the Law & Order cops two clues in 90 seconds.

Bosch: I hope we see Quinn's officer ladylove again—ideally, either teaming up with or going against Carrie. We so rarely see Carrie interact with other women, aside from her sister.

Thomas: Ooh, you've made me wish that Roya had been brought in before. I want to see if Carrie's amazing intuition only extends to male subjects.

We haven’t talked about the revelation that David Estes and Peter Quinn are playing their own game within the spy game. For the longest time I’ve been slipping links into these IMs pointing to my Season 1 suggestion that Estes was the mole. I still don’t know if I’m right about that. For the moment it looks like Estes is wearing two hats—with loyalties to both the regular CIA, with its rules and chain of command, and also (and perhaps more faithfully) to a rogue agent, or maybe former agent, and a kind of frontier justice where terrorists are killed, not coddled in federal lockup. But does that make him a mole? I guess it depends how you define mole!

Bosch: I hope that Estes isn't a traditional mole, as that would strain the show's already questionable credibility. But there is something rogue going on there, or at least extra-hierarchical. Could it be some sort of super-secret, off-the-books organization within the CIA or intelligence community?

Thomas: I can’t wait to find out.

Bosch: Thanks for letting me take a break from Thanksgiving festivities to talk Homeland turkey.

Thomas: Thank you!

Monday: What other writers and Slate commenters thought about Episode 9.

Study: High-School Video Gamers Match Physicians at Robotic-Surgery Simulation

Torie Bosch — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:09:49 GMT

The applicability of video game skills to modern warfare—in the use of drones, in particular—is well known. But a new study suggests, not surprisingly, that gamers might also have an edge in robotic surgery.

Researchers from the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston tasked OB/GYN residents and 10^th graders who regularly play video games to perform tasks on a robotic-surgery simulation—like suturing. On average, the high-school students, who played two hours of video games a day, performed just as well as the residents—a few individual teenagers even did better. (Some have reported that the study showed the teenagers did better than the residents, but the difference in their performances is statistically insignificant.)

UTMBG’s Sami Kilic, the lead author on the study, told me that the high-school students who played virtual doctor were devotees of first-person shooters (especially the Call of Duty franchise—“a wild game,” Kilic says), as well as games featuring sports, strategy, and auto racing. Those who devoted their time to shooting games and sports games did the best at the robotic-surgery simulation—perhaps, he speculates, because the unpredictability of the gameplay was similar to surgery.

The question, Kilic says, is whether spending two hours a day at a game, as these high-schoolers did, might hinder other areas of their development, especially social skills. He hopes to explore that issue soon, with the help of behavioralists.

In the mean time, he told me, “I’m not encouraging [teenagers] to spend countless hours in front of the computer games, because our job is not to create the best surgeon ever or the best soldier ever … in this age group. They have to have the fundamental human being skills in their developing age.”

Of course, it’s not exactly surprising that “video games are making us better at video games.” Robot surgery will be increasingly common in the coming years—so it’s important for people to understand that gaming skills may have real-world applications, or at least virtual applications with real-world consequences.

As Kilic told me, it’s funny that a game like Call of Duty that includes so much death (an infographic released last year by Activision said that Black Ops players alone had killed the world’s population nine times over) could create skills to save a life. But what about using games to teach actual medicine? In the early ‘90s,the video game Life & Death made me briefly consider being a doctor. I became an expert at distinguishing gas from kidney stones and performing virtual appendectomies. But that game’s co-creator, Don Laabs, told me in an email that though they worked with a real surgeon (“and his graphic surgery videos”) to make the game feel true to life, it was never intended to be any sort of training ground or even necessarily to inspire kids to want to be physicians. “That having been said,” he continued,

I recently had a chance to try out a real surgical machine that allowed you to use tiny remote controlled instruments while being able to view the surgical area with magnified 3D vision. The video gamers among us proved quite adept at using the machine. We all agreed, though, that the 3D view was absolutely essential to get the job done. Things have certainly come a long way since Life & Death! With that type of tech available, I'm sure surgery games and simulators will become more and more applicable to real surgery training.

For now, though, Kilic warns that parents with MD ambitions for their children shouldn’t mandate two hours a day at the Xbox 360. Sorry, kids.

Watch Kellan Lutz Play a Top-Secret Agent Obsessed With Social Media

Torie Bosch — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:49:44 GMT

The Petraeus scandal showed us that even the nation’s spy in chief can be blind to the dangers of his online habits. But a short from Funny or Die, starring Kellan Lutz, suggests it could be worse: Our national security could depend on a secret agent who is obsessed with social media in all its flavors. He is Agent Hashtag, and “danger” is his Twitter handle—or rather, @danger69 is. @Danger was already taken.

It probably isn’t a good idea for a covert agent to check in on Foursquare or obsess over Pinterest, even if you can keep your boards secret now. But gloating aside, Agent Hashtag’s constant social media presence could make for more accountability and transparency.

How Robots Saved an Artist’s Sanity

Torie Bosch — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:32:00 GMT

For much of his life, Patrick Tresset has been torn between art and technology. The child of an artist and an engineer, Tresset dabbled in both during his youth in France and enjoyed tinkering with the “primitive” computer his family got when he was 10. In college, he eschewed art in favor of studying business computing. After graduating, however, he “found it boring” and pivoted back to art—painting, in particular.

For the next decade, Tresset tried to make it as a painter. Occasionally, he was successful, exhibiting his work in Paris and London. But “along the way, I kind of lost touch with reality. … I kind of lost my ability to function in society,” he said last weekend at a press conference at Ciudad de las Ideas, an annual gathering about big ideas held in Puebla, Mexico, and sponsored by Grupo Salinas.

In his 30s, Tresset made the admirable and difficult decision to seek treatment for his mental health problems—and for him, medication and therapy worked. There was just one problem. “I was able to function again … but I lost my passion for art, for doing things by hand,” he said.

The connection between creativity and mental illness is complicated and has received a lot of attention—for instance, in Kay Redfield Jamison’s excellent Touched With Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament, published in 1993. Jamison writes in the introduction:

"[T]here is some evidence that as a group, artists and writers disproportionately seek out psychiatric care; certainly many—including Byron, Schumann, Tennyson, Fitzgerald, and Lowell—repeatedly sought help from their physicians. Other writers and artists stop taking their medications because they miss the highs or the emotional intensity associated with their illness, or because they feel the drug side effects interfere with the clarity and rapidity of their thought or diminish their levels of enthusiasm, emotion, and energy."

The latter group seems to be the one that receives more attention—indeed, society seems to revere the mentally ill artist, seeing her as sacrificing her sanity for the greater good. If van Gogh had been healthy, this narrative goes, maybe he wouldn’t have produced such masterpieces.

Tresset, for one, discovered a novel way to stay mentally healthy with the help of drugs and still pursue what was once his life’s work: He created robots that can draw portraits. Far from a mere novelty, his research is telling us more about both the creative process in humans and how we relate emotionally to machines.

You may have already seen one of Tresset’s robots—all of them in this generation are named Paul. In July 2011, video of one sketching its master as part of an exhibit at London’s Tenderpixel went viral. The Pauls are in action once again in a video from October, when they were exhibited at the MERGE Festival in the United Kingdom.

Tresset’s robots use computer vision to identify their subjects—they can recognize faces—and then they spend about 30 minutes on each portrait. (One of his earlier-generation robots, Pete, will actually doodle when there are no faces in sight to draw.) The early versions were crude and involved not physical robots but simulated drawing created with computer-aided drafting programs. But over the past 10 years or so, Tresset and Frederic Fol Leymarie, his co-director at the Aikon project at Goldsmiths University of London, have made tremendous progress. Can you tell which image below was made by a computer and which was created by Tresset before he lost his inspiration?

Robots face some of the same problems in learning to draw as humans do, Tresset says. “When we draw, the difficulty is not in making the lines. The difficulty is in the perception of the subject and the perception of the drawing in progress.” But sometimes, it may help to make it seem that the robot has difficulty in making the lines—Tresset has found that people feel more empathy for the machines when they make human-esque mistakes like crooked or tilted lines. (He calls this “clumsy robotics.”) Humans are inclined to want to identify with robots, especially those with faces: Give a person a bot, and he or she will probably name it. But why is that connection important in robots that draw? Tresset believes that if the person being sketched feels something for the machine wielding the pen, he or she will find the 30-minute sketching process “more touching.” Plus, if the sitter assigns a personality to the robot, it might alter the human’s emotional response to the final product.

Most of us still don’t have robots in the home, but for decades now, we’ve been waiting for machines to do our bidding. Tresset believes that it might be a good idea to imbue all personal robots with some sort of artistic skill to encourage an emotional bond—it might allow for more trust, perhaps, though you can also see how overly identifying with a machine might create some existential questions.

Another project that Tresset has begun work on recently might have more immediately apparent benefits: using Paul-like technology to help those with limited or no use of their limbs to create art. When Tresset lost his own passion for painting, his robots became “a kind of prosthetic for my loss of sensibility,” he told me in an email after the meeting. “[C]reativity can be a great help to overcome sadness, depression, and solitude.”

In recent years, the age-old discussion about whether technology diminishes our humanity has grown increasingly shrill. Yet Tresset demonstrates how, when built and implemented thoughtfully, technology can instead enhance humanity. Many people in his position 10 years ago would have simply let go of their passion for art—or even given up the medication and treatment for the sake of retaining that inspiration. He, however, found another path.

Disclosure: The Azteca Foundation, the foundation arm of the Mexican conglomerate Grupo Salinas, provided funding for my trip to Ciudad de las Ideas.

Dimitar Sasselov: Enjoy the Discoveries of Earth-Like Planets While They Last

Torie Bosch — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:02:44 GMT

When big scientific discoveries are announced in the popular media, researchers often look to temper the hype—that new drug probably won’t cure cancer, say, despite the headlines.

But on Saturday, at Ciudad de las Ideas, an annual conference about big ideas held in Puebla, Mexico, and sponsored by Grupo Salinas, astronomer Dimitar Sasselov gave us non-scientists permission to be excited about last week’s news that a new so-called “super Earth” christened HD 40307g has been discovered 42 light-years away. “Super Earths” are somewhat larger than our home planet and exist in the “Goldilocks zone”—not too close to its sun, not too far—believed to be capable of supporting life. At least, as Phil Plait explained on Bad Astronomy just before his move to Slate, scientists think they have discovered it—calculations suggest that the planet is there, but it’s impossible to confirm yet.

Sasselov, a Harvard professor and author of The Life of Super-Earths: How the Hunt for Alien Worlds and Artificial Cells Will Revolutionize Life on Our Planet, told me at a Ciudad de las Ideas press conference, “In science, it is rare that a transformational change occurs during our lifetimes.” Discovery of exoplanets—especially super Earths—is one such transformational event, he believes. We should enjoy it while it lasts. Finding super-Earths “has been going on like this for the last 10 years. I think it will go on like that for another 10 years and then it will plateau out.” At that point, said Sasselov, the field’s breakthroughs will be more sporadic, like in other scientific disciplines.

“Something which looked like magic just a few years ago is becoming a reality,” he told the Ciudad de las Ideas audience later that night.

The next step for Sasselov and his fellow space-explorers is to find traces of life on one of these super-Earths—whatever that life may look like.

Disclosure: The Azteca Foundation, the foundation arm of the Mexican conglomerate Grupo Salinas, provided funding for my trip to Ciudad de las Ideas.

How Would Lifelong Perfect Health Change Our Society?

Torie Bosch — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:36:46 GMT

Despite his reputation, Aubrey de Grey doesn’t necessarily want to make you live forever. (I would like not to call attention to his impressively bushy beard, since every story about de Grey does that, but it is impossible not to admire it.)

“I do not like to use the word immortality. It gives a very bad, a wrong impression about my work. I work on health. I am interested in ensuring that people will stay completely youthful, like young adults, for as long as they live,” he said at a press conference at Ciudad de las Ideas, an annual conference about big ideas held in Puebla, Mexico, and sponsored by Grupo Salinas, this weekend.

de Grey is the founder of the SENS Foundation, a nonprofit that, among other things, is funding projects intended to cure aging, if not dying. His goal: that everyone may stay a health 29 for as long as they may live. “It is quite likely that there will be a big side effect of doing that, which is that people will live a lot longer, but that is just a side effect,” he says.

Let’s say that de Grey’s research pans out—whether it’s in the next 20 years, as he hopes may be possible; in the next 40, which he thinks is likely; or not for the next 100, which could happen “if we are unlucky or if we do not try hard enough.” How would lifelong health change the way we live? When I asked de Grey that, he cautioned that he is not a sociologist, economist, or theologian, and said that he sometimes speaks to those groups to encourage them to start thinking now about the ramifications of such a medical breakthrough. That caveat out of the way, he believes that one result would be that adult children will no longer have to care for their elderly parents—which would allow them to be more productive in the workforce, for instance.

“I think that actually society will be very different but … mostly in ways that it is already moving as a result of technology, including health technologies, that are happening already,” he says. “We see today many more people having multiple careers, moving from one to another; having multiple long-term partnerships one after another; generally much more equality between ages; people having partners that are very far distance from them in age. These things I think will simply continue to progress.” Furthermore, he imagines, women would be able to postpone childbirth still further—which could ameliorate a common concern, that the population would explode as a result of death-defying research, he believes.

But maybe we’re getting ahead of ourselves. In 2005, Paul Boutin wrote about criticism de Grey has faced from the scientific community—chiefly that he is an “enthusiast,” not a real researcher. (He has a BA in computer science, not a medical degree.) "He is a fly geneticist who, without training in the field of the biology of aging, is in my view, misguided in his belief that the aging process will be capable of manipulation in the next decade or two. This belief has been 20 years in the future for the last 3,500 years!” one scientist told Boutin. But maybe that doesn’t matter, As Boutin concluded:

OK, so de Grey isn't doing hard science himself. His theories may all prove wrong when tested. And in any case, I'm sure I'll be long gone before anyone cures old age. But who says an enthusiast can't contribute? If someone, someday, gets to live a lot longer than we will because Aubrey de Grey brought more buzz to the A-word [aging], it doesn't matter if he grows his beard to his knees.

de Grey may agree with that. “We need to try harder, we need more efforts on the part of biologists and technologists to make this happen as soon as possible,” he said To that end, he said on stage at Ciudad de las Ideas, his SENS Foundation is funding two regenerative-medicine projects at the lab of Anthony Atala, who spoke at Ciudad de las Ideas on Friday. (Indeed, Atala is on the research advisory board of SENS.) Maybe we can’t all stay 29 forever, but his work is at least enabling researchers to try harder.

Disclosure: The Azteca Foundation, the foundation arm of the Mexican conglomerate Grupo Salinas, provided funding for my trip to Ciudad de las Ideas.

How Close Are We to Making Like Salamanders and Regenerating Our Own Organs?

Torie Bosch — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 19:14:11 GMT

Right now, more than 116,000 people are on the U.S. organ transplant waiting list. But what if they could just regrow their own livers, hearts, and kidneys, even 3-D print them?

Anthony Atala, the director of the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, is working to make that a reality. Speaking today at Ciudad de las Ideas, an annual conference about big ideas held in Puebla, Mexico, and sponsored by Grupo Salinas, Atala asked, “If a salamander can do it, why can’t we?”

Atala and his fellow researchers can take a person’s own cells and use them to patch damaged areas on organs. They can load cells into a spray bottle and squirt them on burned skin to help those with bad burns. And that’s just the beginning.

You may remember Atala from his 2010 TED talk, which went viral. But in the mere two years since then, he and his team have made significant advances, he says. In 2011, they announced that they had developed a technique to grow engineered urethras—a part of the body that most of us take for granted. It was used to help several Mexican boys whose urethras were damaged in car accidents. "When they first came in, they had a leg bag that drains urine, and they have to carry this bag everywhere they go,” he told NPR. After the procedure, they became “totally normal.” Actually, by the time he gave the TED talk in 2010, the procedure had already been a success—but Atala told me, “We wait five years to publish things.” That way, they can carefully evaluate whether the new organs work.

In Puebla, Atala described other cutting-edge therapies he’s working on, like using a scanner and 3-D printer to create rapid treatment for soldiers wounded on the battlefield. (That project is being carried out in conjunction with the Department of Defense.)

So how long until regenerative medicine can make the agonizingly long transplant waiting list a thing of the past? Within the next decade, Atala predicts, “we will see partial replacements of [some] organs—not the entire replacement, but many times that’s all we need.” Of course, the very necessary regulatory process will have to be carried out before there is widespread use of regenerated organs. Atala notes that the average drug takes 15.5 years to be approved in the United States, and regenerative medicine is neither drug nor medical device, but a combination thereof, which makes approval even more complicated. However, he tells me, the FDA has recently created an Office of Combined Products that will help this process run a bit more smoothly.

As Atala noted in his talk, regenerative medicine isn’t a wholly new field—in fact, in the 1930s, famed aviator Charles Lindberg, of all people, co-authored a book on the subject. But soon, perhaps, the process will truly take flight.

Disclosure: The Azteca Foundation, the foundation arm of the Mexican conglomerate Grupo Salinas, provided funding for my trip to Ciudad de las Ideas.

Character Studies: Chummy, Call the Midwife

Torie Bosch — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:10:00 GMT

Call the Midwife, a British series currently airing on PBS—the season finale is on Sunday—is often difficult to watch. Its portrayal of midwives working in a rough London neighborhood in the 1950s is unsparing in its depiction of poverty, the pain and dangers of childbirth, the way people who mean the best can do the worst. It is also oddly addictive.

Based on the memoirs of the late Jennifer Worth, Call the Midwife is not merely grim. It is often downright joyous, showing the happiness and relief that comes with the birth of a healthy baby even when the circumstances aren’t perfect. The characters—young midwives, the nuns who are training them, and their clients—are almost all complex and engaging. One, however, steals the show. It’s not Worth herself—then known as Nurse Jenny Lee—but the clumsy, giant, posh Camilla Fortescue Cholomondley-Browne, known as Chummy.

Chummy, who joins the cast in the show’s second episode, is played by the quirky and wonderful Miranda Hart. Her height and heft seem to give her more body parts to tangle and trip over—especially when she learns to ride a bicycle, the midwife’s standard mode of transportation. She is as awkward and unsure of herself socially as she is physically—in the book, Worth describes her as “pathetically eager to be liked.” The daughter of several generations of British civil servants in India, Chummy was raised in boarding schools and occasionally palled around with the royals. Princess Margaret is “frightfully vivacious when she's had a gin,” Chummy tells her shocked fellow midwives, then hastens to add that she hasn’t “really seen her since Pa's investiture.”

But the posh fish in the plebian pond is warm, too, and her open, kindly discomfort endears her to patients, to the other midwives, to a local boy who takes it upon himself to protect her from those rough children who would taunt her—even to the police officer she runs into while learning to ride a bike.

Chummy sees her work as a means to becoming a missionary. “I feel I’ve been called to work in Africa by God,” she says. But she wants love, too. “One hopes there might be some sort of a chap along the way,” she says. And one of the most delightful story lines in Call the Midwife is her shy flirtation with the policeman she nearly ran over—a budding relationship facilitated by an eye-rolling nun. When faced with the prospect of going to a dance with her bobby, Hart plays Chummy’s nervous excitement perfectly—for all of the character’s warmth and happiness, you can hear the echo of a thousand embarrassing moments when she sighs, “One has so many horrific memories.”

Though Worth’s Call the Midwife is billed—along with its two sequels—as a memoir, there is not a little fiction in the book, and the show as well. Chummy, alas, appears not to have been real, according to nuns at the convent where Worth served. That breaks my heart a little. I want Chummy to have existed, because someone like her makes the world seem a little more jolly and interesting and less predictable. But if she heard me say that, she would no doubt tell me, “Buck up, what.”

Previous Character Studies:
Patty Hewes, Damages
Dexter Morgan, Dexter
Adam Sackler, Girls
Shirley Bennett, Community
April Ludgate, Parks and Recreation
Tyrion Lannister, Game of Thrones
Sally Draper, Mad Men
Pamela, Louie
Sterling Archer, Archer
Dougie, Enlightened

Will Hurricane Sandy Convince Congress To Form a U.S. Weather Commission?

Torie Bosch — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:59:36 GMT

During a congressional briefing last month, representatives from the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, which represents nearly 80 American universities, urged the creation of a U.S. weather commission. Such a commission, the meteorologists say, would help Congress identify spending priorities, call attention to problems, and help minimize the economic and human toll from major weather events. (Like, say, Hurricane Sandy.) It would also help the disparate organizations that make up the weather community—like universities, private companies, and government agencies—better communicate with one another.

UCAR hopes that the weather commission will be established in 2013 (though surely it depends at least in part on Election Day results). Certainly this week’s superstorm has reminded both politicians and laymen the importance of preparedness for major weather events, even as there are problems within the forecasting system. As the New York Times reported in the run-up to Sandy, after “years of mismanagement, lack of financing and delays in launching replacements,” U.S. weather satellites are “dying”—and as soon as 2017, we may even face a year or more without satellite coverage. Furthermore, Jason Samenow wrote on the Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang last month, “the U.S. is lagging the Europeans in numerical weather prediction and the computing resources necessary to improve forecasts.” Given all the chatter about whether Sandy and other weather monsters are related to climate change, that is particularly disconcerting.

So will Hurricane Sandy help make the case for a commission?

In an email, Thomas Bogdan, the president of UCAR, said that an in-place weather commission might not necessarily have changed anything about Hurricane Sandy. But, he adds, “A commission could examine the weather community’s handling of Sandy and weigh in on what went well and what needs to be improved in order to better safeguard vulnerable communities and critical infrastructure from the next major storm.” Events like Sandy “demonstrate the extent to which our nation is vulnerable to weather events and the need to better coordinate our research and forecasting work to make our country more resilient to such events.”

However, he cautions against focusing too much on the big storms: “[E]ven day-to-day variations in the weather have an annual estimated economic impact of nearly $500 billion each year.”

Can Resilience Save Tomorrow's Cities From Climate Change and Disaster? A Future Tense Event.

Torie Bosch — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:08:03 GMT

In the coming decades, cities will be bigger than ever, energy more expensive, and the climate more volatile. These new challenges, to use the politician’s favorite euphemism, will make it harder than ever to meet electricity demands, run transportation systems smoothly and keep buildings safe. The answer? Resilience, say some experts. But what does that really mean?

To define the term and learn how the concept is being applied today, Future Tense—a partnership of Arizona State University, the New America Foundation, and Slate—and Scientific American co-hosted a discussion called “Can Megacities Be Resilient?” on Wednesday night at New America’s SoHo office. SciAm associate editor David Biello was joined by Leah Cohen, New York City's climate resilience advisor, and Steven Koonin, inaugural director of NYU's new Center for Urban Science and Progress and former undersecretary of energy for science. Though most of the conversation focused on how New York City is working to build up its resilience, its actions can be instructive to other urban areas. Indeed, many of its efforts were inspired by partners around the world.

First things first: defining resilience. In her role at the New York City mayor’s office, Cohen said resilience is “really about risk management” and the capacity to “withstand and recover from environmental changes.” The mayor’s office is focused on protecting critical city infrastructure, safeguarding development on the shoreline that could threatened by climate change-induced sea-level rise, and keeping people safe by strengthening emergency response. Koonin added that these efforts aren’t motivated solely by climate change—the city’s systems also need to be resilient in the face of blackouts, terrorist threats, natural disasters, and other events—foreseen or not.

This all sounds eminently reasonable, but implementing it—especially, as Biello pointed out, in a time of budget constraints—is tricky, to say the least. The key components: intensive planning and priority setting. Those, in turn, require good, strong data.

Koonin calls himself “at heart a hard-core data geek.” He hopes to wire cities so that they constantly generate information about how people actually live, thus allowing for resources to be allocated in a much more targeted, efficient manner. He cited one proposal that may seem extreme—requiring that all cars that enter city limits have a GPS navigator, so that traffic information can be dissected. “You can feel the 1984 vibe,” Biello said as people in the standing-room-only audience murmured. But Koonin stressed that individual privacy will be respected from the outset of any such initiatives. Furthermore, he emphasized, companies already have much of that information. At least government would put it to good use.

Jarring as it may sound, there’s a logic behind pinpointing where resources are needed, especially as populations boom. According to Cohen, New York City may have an additional 1 million residents by 2030, even as it faces effects of climate change —like more hot days and an increased risk of flooding. But they aren’t thinking about “going in and getting rid of neighborhoods and restoring them to wetlands,” she says. Instead, they are looking to “green infrastructure” and how to do things like retrofit existing buildings.

Koonin and Cohen agreed that one of the best ways to help cities like New York develop resilience is to work with other places facing the same problems. For instance, if you’re worried about earthquakes, Koonin said, look to the seismic codes of Japan, which requires gradual upgrades to its buildings. Cohen pointed to some efforts of the Dutch as models for how New York City could address sea-level rise. The NYC mayor’s office is involved the C40 group of dozens of cities—originally 40, but now more than 50—that are engaged in discussion about climate change. Perhaps the biggest hurdle, aside from budget, is bureaucracy. Koonin believes that when it comes to inefficiencies, “We do a lot of this to ourselves, the way we divide up governmental authorities.” Too many departments are involved in the same areas—like energy policy.

Which gets to a fundamental issue here. Resilience requires seemingly disparate fields—fiscal policy, national security, environmental protection, infrastructure—to work together to create robust systems. But only when they work together properly, instead of engaging in turf disputes, will things get better instead of worse.

Future Tense Event Recap: Will Neurolaw Change the Judicial System—and Does Free Will Exist?

Torie Bosch — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:34:54 GMT

What happens if every criminal can point to a brain scan or genetic test and say, “That’s the reason why I killed that person?”

At “My Brain Made Me Do It,” a Future Tense event held at the New America Foundation on Monday, Oct. 22, scientists, lawyers, and journalists gathered to discuss the mounting use of brain imaging in the courtroom to determine biological origins for crime, to detect lies, to mitigate sentencing, and more. According to our panelists, neuroscience won’t yet—and maybe never will—completely upend the justice system as we know it. But it will only come into play more in the coming years.

Where is the science now?: Stephen J. Morse, associate director of the University of Pennsylvania Law School’s Center for Neuroscience and Society, said that at the moment, the research is “rhetorically relevant”—it’s worth discussing—but not truly relevant in the real world. But Kent Kiehl, an associate professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico, believes that we are getting very close to real-world applications. In his research, Kiehl has scanned the brains of many prison inmates, even those on death row. He says that his scans can predict with startling accuracy who will be schizophrenic, for instance.

Abigail Marsh, an assistant professor of psychology at Georgetown University, explained that her research has shown psychopaths are more likely to have inactive amygdalae. Moreover, people who have damage to the amygdala show similar deficits to psychopaths—no fear, impaired recognition of fear in other people. This is intriguing, but it’s early days yet. Indeed, Kayla Pope, director of neurobehavioral research at Boys Town National Research Hospital, warned that while “most of it is … pretty good science … the legal system will distort or pervert” that research as it is used by people with different objectives, like defense attorneys or prosecutors.

When it comes to identifying liars, Hank Greely, director of Stanford’s Center for Law and the Biosciences, cautioned against getting too excited about studies suggesting fMRI can tell the difference between those telling the truth and those who are not. Greely pointed out that those studies, by definition, are done in lab settings, with subjects—primarily undergrads—who know they are being studied. Who knows how the results would be changed in the real world? And how could you study it while following ethical guidelines for research?

What should we do with those who might become criminals? Kiehl, Pope, and Gary Marchant—who is Lincoln professor of emerging technologies, law, and ethics at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law—are all intrigued by the idea of developing treatment programs for those with brain scans and personal histories that suggest they are predisposed to criminal behavior. “The legal system and some of the tragedies you read about underscore importance of using this technology for prevention—not to put them in jail but to try to stop it from happening,” Marchant said, echoing an argument he made in a Slate piece recently. Sally Satel, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, pointed out that treatment could depend in part on whether there may be “an acquired psychopathy vs. an innate one”—but the panel wasn’t sure which “flavor” might be easier to remedy.

What about the law? Greely and Marchant, joined by moderator Jeff Rosen, the legal affairs editor of the New Republic, said that it is incredibly difficult to assess how frequently neuroscience evidence is being introduced in court, let alone how often it comes up as attorneys decide whether to make a plea deal. When does enter into the record, juries and judges can go either way. Sometimes, evidence that someone is a psychopath might prompt a longer sentence, as he is more likely to reoffend, or it could sway the jury to give a lesser sentence, as it’s not his fault. For the most part, it is used as mitigating evidence during sentencing, not to make the case that he should be found not guilty. Neurolaw can also come into play in appeals on the basis of ineffective counsel—the convicted could argue that his original lawyer should have tried to introduce a brain scan, for instance.

Down the road, said Greely and Marchant, the Supreme Court may have to weigh in on the issue of “cognitive liberty,” especially when it comes to lie detection or to remotely scanning someone’s brain. Right now, you essentially have to consent to an fMRI scan—you have to keep your head still. But what if a scan can be done from yards away, without your knowledge? Would scans be considered physical evidence or testimony—which amendment to the Constitution would cover them? Greely, for one, suspects that they will be considered “testimonial,” but it’s not yet clear.

Are psychopaths and others with damaged brains responsible for their crimes? Morse highlighted the example of “Mr. Oft,” a man who developed an interest in child pornography in middle age and then molested his stepdaughter. It turned out that Mr. Oft, a pseudonym, had a brain tumor. When the tumor was removed, his urges subsided; when it grew back, they returned. But it would still be wrong to think that the tumor “made him” do it, said Morse. All pedophiles are pedophiles for a reason—why would he be less responsible than any other?

Pope looks at it another way. Maybe we aren’t “victims of our neurocircuitry,” she said, but we “certainly are products of it.”

Morse, at least, thinks that the entire conversation is premised on the wrong idea. “Forget about free will,” he says. “Nobody has it. No one ever did have it. No one ever will have it.”

Future Tense is a partnership of Arizona State University, the New America Foundation, and Slate magazine. Watch “My Brain Made Me Do It” on the New America Foundation website. To learn more about neuroscience and how it is transforming (or not transforming) the law, read the related articles on Slate:

“Will Neuroscience Radically Transform the Legal System? Brain scans may help us read minds and assign responsibility better,” by Henry T. Greely, Oct. 15, 2012.

“Less Guilty by Reason of Neurological Defect: Should psychopaths serve more or less time in prison than other criminals?” by Abigail Marsh, Oct. 16, 2012.

“Should We Screen Kids’ Brains and Genes To ID Future Criminals? Intervention might help save troubled kids. But the label could doom them,” by Gary Marchant, Oct. 17, 2012.

“Neuroscientists: Mercenaries in the Courtroom. Using brain imaging to select jurors and more could have disastrous consequences,” by David DiSalvo, Oct. 18, 2012.

“Could Neuroscience Exonerate Showtime Serial Killer Dexter Morgan?” by Katy Waldman, Oct. 19, 2012.

High-Tech Robot Takes a Break From Soccer To Do "Gangnam Style"

Torie Bosch — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:47:30 GMT

The “Gangnam Style” moment may be nearly over for us humans, but it’s just catching on with the robots. In a new video, CHARLI, a soccer-playing humanoid robot from Virginia Tech’s Robotics and Mechanics Laboratory, shows that it can pull of some fancy footwork on the dance floor as well as on the field. (In 2011, CHARLI brought home first place in the adult-size division at RoboCup, the World Cup of robotic soccer.) Maybe CHARLI’s horse move could use a little more height, but it definitely has more rhythm than some humans.

This may look like an exercise in ridiculousness, but research in RoboCup has actually led to genuine robotics breakthroughs, as I reported earlier this year after visiting CHARLI and RoMeLa. CHARLI definitely puts Willow Garage’s PR2 robot’s performance of the “Macarena” to shame.

British Maxi Pad Company's Snarky Video Is the Greatest Thing To Happen to the Feminine-Hygiene Biz

Torie Bosch — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:37:00 GMT

Making fun of “feminine product” ads is entry-level ad criticism. The blue water used to demonstrate the tampon or pad’s ability to absorb “liquid” (no mention of blood, of course)? The tendency of women to spin or climb to demonstrate how freely they can move (no mention of why they might not be able to move so freely)? Low-hanging fruit.

Still, when a bloke named Richard took to the Facebook page of Bodyform, a British company that manufactures maxi pads, to complain about misleading advertising, he earned some chuckles. More than 85,000 of them, in fact, judging by the number of Likes.

In response, Bodyform released what might be one of the most genius bits of corporate-produced satire I’ve seen. An actress, playing a fake CEO (since Bodyform doesn’t actually have one), berates Richard for destroying the feminine-hygiene industry's carefully crafted illusions.

Fact is, Richard, you’re a few years late. Tampon and pad ads have actually gotten a bit better of late. U by Kotex’s spot with an alterna-lite chick deadpanning, “I like to twirl … maybe in slow motion … and usually, by the third day, I just want to dance,” was pretty excellent, as these things go. Before that, Kotex had experimented Down Under with a series in which women carry around beavers, with the tag line, “You’ve only got one.” Tampax’s “Mother Nature” series still uses the blue water, but there’s some humor there. Maybe in the United Kingdom they are still making tampon spots that, like herpes ads, seem calculated to hide what they are pitching. But the industry appears to be heading in a good direction.

So Richard, you’re behind on the times. But thanks for giving Bodyform a reason to make this video.

U.K. Will Not Extradite Alien-Hunting Hacker With Asperger’s Who Broke Into NASA, Military Computers

Torie Bosch — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:12:45 GMT

About 10 years ago, a British man named Gary McKinnon was using the Internet for one of its oldest purposes: looking for information about government cover-ups of UFOs. But McKinnon took it further than most. He used his considerable computer skills to hack into NASA and military computers to find evidence of aliens.

Now, a years-long battle over whether McKinnon, who has Asperger’s syndrome and depression, should be sent to the United States to answer for his intrusions into government computers has come to an end. But that doesn't mean he's officially off the hook.

U.S. law enforcement claims that McKinnon wasn’t harmlessly searching for aliens—he damaged critical military systems, not long after Sept. 11, no less. In 2004, the United States officially requested that he be extradited. (The Guardian has a thorough timeline of the McKinnon case.)

In the years since, McKinnon has fought the extradition order, claiming that it would violate his human rights because he suffers from Asperger’s syndrome. Finally, today, Home Secretary Theresa May, who was tasked with determining whether to ship him off, announced that he will be staying put. In her statement, she said:

Mr. McKinnon is accused of serious crimes, but there is also no doubt that he is seriously ill. He has Asperger’s syndrome and suffers from depressive illness. The legal question before me is now whether the extent of that illness is sufficient to preclude extradition. … I have concluded that Mr. McKinnon’s extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that the decision to extradite would be incompatible with his human rights. I have therefore withdrawn the extradition order against Mr. McKinnon. It will now be for the director of public prosecution to decide whether Mr. McKinnon has a case to answer in a U.K. court.

May also proposed radically changing the way Britain handles requests for extradition, following years of heated debate over whether a 2003 extradition treaty with the United States was too “one-sided.”

Part of the debate over McKinnon has centered on whether it was his Asperger’s syndrome that compelled him to obsessively hack into government computers. “Is it fair to punish him for the combined impact of 100 separate crimes just because his compulsion played out in so many episodes? ... [D]efense lawyers have successfully argued that people with Asperger's may not be in control of their collecting tendencies and could easily find themselves in the maximum sentencing category,” Erica Westly wrote for Slate in 2009 in an article titled “The Geek Defense.”

But May’s decision was focused less on what caused McKinnon to get himself into such mischief and more on how he would react—as she said in her statement, she believes the evidence suggests that he very probably would attempt suicide.

Meanwhile, another British citizen with Asperger’s—Talha Ahsan, who is accused of running jihadi websites—was recently ordered extradited to the United States. Experts have testified that Ahsan, too, could harm himself if locked up in an American “supermax” prison—but apparently he wasn’t considered as high a suicide risk as McKinnon. What was a victory for McKinnon already seems to have complicated international discussions about who, exactly, is fit for trial, and for punishment.

On Oct. 22, Future Tense will be hosting an event in Washington, D.C., to discuss how the judicial system can—and should—respond as neuroscientists and other experts increasingly determine that people’s brains and genes may make them more inclined to commit crime. For more information and to RSVP, visit the New America Foundation website.

Come Hear Wired’s Chris Anderson Discuss His New Book Makers With David Plotz in D.C.

Torie Bosch — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:02:37 GMT

In his new book Makers: The New Industrial Revolution, Wired Editor-in-Chief Chris Anderson says that 3-D printing, open source design, and other new tools are creating a culture of creativity and entrepreneurship. He writes: “[T]he digital revolution has now reached the workshop, the lair of Real Stuff, and there it may have its greatest impact yet. Not just the workshops themselves (although they’re getting pretty cool these days), but more what can be done in the physical world by regular people with extraordinary tools.”

Fascinating, right? You can hear more about it in person. On Thursday, Oct. 25, at 6 p.m., Anderson will discuss Makers and DIY culture with Slate Editor David Plotz in Washington, D.C.—and some seats are reserved for Slate readers.

If you’d like to attend, please email futuretensedc@gmail.com with your name, location, and any affiliation you’d like to mention. You can RSVP for yourself and one guest. Unfortunately, we only have a limited number of tickets available. If you get one (or two!), we will let you know ahead of time and will send you the event address.

Will China’s Scientists and Technologists Ever Be Truly Innovative?

Torie Bosch — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 19:49:42 GMT

Just this week, a House of Representatives committee issued a report warning the United States against doing business with two major Chinese tech firms, ZTE and Huawei. The companies were closely tied to the Chinese government, the report said, and could be stealing information from the U.S. government and American businesses.

Against that backdrop, today Future Tense—a partnership of Slate, the New America Foundation, and Arizona State University—held an event called “Arms Race vs. Relay Race: What Does Innovation Hold for China?”

In opening remarks, Steve LeVine, Washington correspondent for Quartz magazine and a Bernard L. Schwartz fellow, established the questions for the day: Can China ever become an “innovation juggernaut,” just as it is a world leader in manufacturing? Does “innovation” have to mean breakthroughs, or is incremental innovation—small tweaks on Western-made technology to make it cheaper and sometimes better—enough? And should the rest of the world be worried?

Our speakers—Yasheng Huang, a professor of international management at MIT; Denis Simon, vice provost for international strategic initiatives at Arizona State University; Adam Segal, senior fellow for Chinese studies at the Council on Foreign Relations; and Yifei Sun, associate professor of geography at California State University-Northridge—debated those topics for the hour and a half that followed. As they explained it, there are many social and political obstacles to China’s quest to become a leader in innovation. For instance:

-Creativity isn’t encouraged: Segal argued that while we focus on the “hardware”—the more tangible results of innovation, like patents filed—China needs to focus on the “software” problems of culture. In China, researchers aren’t urged to think creatively, nor do they feel free to fail. “No risk, no reward” may be a cliché, but it is also a truism.

-Quantity is valued over quality: According to Huang, the number of journal articles published by Chinese researchers has exploded in recent years. But outside of the life sciences and biology, the level of impact from this research has remained fairly flat—indicating that the research is not high-quality. In part, this may be because researchers are paid per publication, so repetitive research and short-term work is incentivized.

-Intellectual property rights are not respected: Since patents and copyrights are frequently violated, there is less incentive to create.

China’s leadership understands all of these things, said Segal. In fact, they have probably visited Silicon Valley “more than anyone,” he joked. Accordingly, China’s 2006 mid- to long-term plan for science and technology development emphasized the need for better intellectual property protection, for startup culture. But politically, introducing these elements will be very difficult—especially, as Simon noted, because the politicians have other significant worries on their minds, like domestic protests. Still, they understand that the “transition to a knowledge economy” is critical, and accordingly they want to be the No. 1 or No. 2 country in the world for innovation by 2049—China’s centennial. That’s one reason why they are expanding investment into R&D, going from 1 percent of GDP for a long time to 2 percent of GDP in 2011. But China isn’t doing this only for financial reasons, according to Segal—the country also wants not to have to depend on the West for its technological and scientific needs.

There are some positive signs here for China. For instance, Simon said that more and more research funding is coming in at the local level, not from the national government—a “systemic change,” he termed it. And while many Western companies opened their research labs in China initially because the government effectively made it a condition for selling goods in the country, said Sun, they are increasingly producing interesting work. No breakthroughs yet, he acknowledged, but they may come soon. China’s most successful fields—nanotechnology, life sciences, biology—are those that have been open to international collaboration.

So is this really an arms race? It depends, said our panelists. Many in the West see China as a “scary dragon,” said Sun. He pointed out that while Western economies have faltered, China’s has continued to grow rapidly, which is why so many in the U.S. are in “panic mode.” But if China “plays by international rules,” said Segal, the world will win. But if the Chinese carry out industrial espionage, violate intellectual property rights, and otherwise go against international norms, then “they are a threat”—especially to the United States. But there is reason for everyone to hope that, and try to make, it will work: As Simon put it, there are few, if any, global problems that can be solved without “close collaboration between the United States and China.”

Watch the entire event on the New America Foundation website.

My Brain Made Me Do It: Join Us for a Future Tense Event on Neuroscience and the Law

Torie Bosch — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:00:00 GMT

The cornerstone of our legal system is free will: Anyone who is not insane is accountable for crimes ranging from tax evasion to murder. But an emerging body of science is challenging that notion, using brain scans and genetic testing to suggest that some people may be born criminals. Does neuroscience really support the idea that some people can’t help but break the law? What happens if we can detect criminal propensity in toddlers? Should criminals diagnosed as psychopaths spend less time in prison because it’s not their fault, or additional time because they are more likely to act again? And what happens to our basic legal framework if almost any defendant can say, “My brain made me do it”?

Join Future Tense on Monday, Oct. 22, at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C., for a discussion on how scientific advances are affecting our judicial system. To learn more and to RSVP, visit the New America Foundation website.

Our speakers will include:

Stephen J. Morse, associate director, Center for Neuroscience & Society, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Kent Kiehl, associate professor of psychology, University of New Mexico
Kayla Pope, director of neurobehavioral research, Boys Town National Research Hospital
Sally Satel, resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, and psychiatrist, Partners in Drug Abuse and Rehabilitation Counseling
Laura Helmuth, science and health editor, Slate
Abigail Marsh, assistant professor of Psychology, Georgetown University
Gary Marchant, Lincoln professor of emerging technologies, law, and ethics, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
Hank Greely, director, Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford Law School, and director, Stanford Interdisciplinary Group on Neuroscience and Society
Jeff Rosen, professor of law, George Washington University, and legal affairs editor, the New Republic

You can find the full agenda here.

Future Tense is a partnership of Arizona State University, the New America Foundation, and Slate.

When It Comes to Science and Tech, Are There Really Any Differences Between Obama and Romney?

Torie Bosch — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:51:46 GMT

Which presidential candidate would do the most to further scientific and medical research, technological advancement, and STEM education? Do their differing philosophies on regulation, government funding of R&D, and even the human role in climate change actually matter in the long run?

Those were the guiding questions at “It’s Science and Technology Policy, Stupid,” a Future Tense event held at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday.

The discussion began with a presentation from New America Foundation Bernard L. Schwartz fellow Konstantin Kakaes, who argued—as he recently did in a Future Tense piece for Slate—that politicians dramatically overestimate how much they can affect scientific and technological research. And contrary to the red-blue rhetoric that dominates so much of our political discourse, he said, neither party has a monopoly on science. Both Republicans and Democrats, for example, have backed boost-phase missile defense. But numerous studies—for example, an independent 2003 report from the American Physical Society—have said that the approach won’t actually keep Americans safe from missiles launched by enemies abroad. And in areas where we think that the parties diverge—for instance, fracking—Kakaes says that the differences aren’t actually as stark as one might expect. It’s a problem of being a politician instead of a scientist, of prioritizing today’s benefits over tomorrow’s potential problems.

Following Kakaes’ talk, panelists Sheri Fink, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigator reporter and a medical doctor; Amanda Ripley, a contributing writer to Time; and Stacy Cline, counsel for Sen. Mike Enzi, Republican ranking member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, took the stage with moderator Robert Wright, a senior editor at Atlantic. (Ripley, Wright, and Fink are also fellows at the New America Foundation.) The group discussed how politics are shaping—or failing to shape—government funding of research, health care reform, education, and technology policy.

Cline agreed with Kakaes that in many ways, Republicans and Democrats share ground on science and technology issues—but they disagree on how much government should fund research, as well as on neutrality, or the debate over whether Internet providers should have to funnel traffic to all websites equally. While Obama has argued in favor of net neutrality, Cline said, Republicans are wary of giving the FCC too much power. Wright noted that in fact, Obama has backed off on net neutrality when it comes to mobile Internet—something that further demonstrates the shared ground between the parties. On many science and tech issues, the parties are themselves divided—Republicans don’t all agree on data privacy issues, for instance, as Cline pointed out.

Though Cline stated that Romney would freeze funding for much research and Obama plans to double it in certain areas, Fink responded that thanks to the fiscal crisis, there actually is “not much hope” of increasing federal money spent on such research in the coming years. But that doesn’t mean an end to acrimony: She predicts we’ll continue to see partisan debate over stem cell research and also health care: During the recent Obama-Romney debate, she said, the candidates continued to disagree over whether the infamous 12-member panel intended to cut health care costs could be considered “rationing.” While many Republicans warn that the panel could ban certain procedures, according to Fink, others argue that we genuinely do need to determine which treatments are actually effective and which are just wasteful spending.

And then we come to the STEM: As Wright noted, the acronym STEM—science, technology, engineering, math—has been everywhere lately as educators, politicians, and parents fret over whether students are developing the skills to keep them competitive in the job market and the United States competitive in the global market. Ripley, who is writing a book on education, agreed that the word is overused. Instead of talking about STEM, she said, she would rather we focus on rigor—whether kids are learning critical thinking. Particularly problematic is the way that the country seems to be counting on gadgets to improve education. Even poorly performing schools in the United States have digital whiteboards, she said, but most classrooms in the top-performing countries are surprisingly low-tech. The gizmos are just a band-aid on a broken educational system. But unsurprisingly, Obama and Romney disagree on the role federal government should play in fixing the schools. Despite having very little actual power over education, Ripley said, the Obama administration has been able to have a significant impact, in part because they had so much stimulus money to “throw around.”

Much of the event focused on the difference between research and learning for their own sake—to further human knowledge and understanding—and for economic gain. The latter, said Wright, often comes down to a question of winning. In particular, politicians, businesspeople, and the laity hammer the importance of “beating China.” But Wright argued that the government shouldn’t be focused on beating China—it should be trying to improve American lives.

Want to learn more about whether China can become an innovation powerhouse—and what that would mean for the United States? We’ll be hosting another Future Tense event on that very topic on Friday, Oct. 12, at the New America Foundation. To learn more and to RSVP, visit the New America Foundation website.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, the New America Foundation, and Arizona State University.